Heleva v. Brooks et al
Filing
60
ORDER DENYING ptnr's motion for appointment of counsel 56 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 8/23/13. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL ARTHUR HELEVA,
:
:
Petitioner
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN MRS M. BROOKS, and :
PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, :
:
Respondents
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1398
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2013, upon consideration of petitioner’s
motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 56), and the Court recognizing that
although prisoners have no “automatic” constitutional or statutory rights to
appointment of counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, a court does have
broad discretionary power to appoint counsel under 18 U.S.C. §3006Aa(a)(2)1,
Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), and that several factors must be
considered in deciding whether the “interests of justice require” the appointment of
counsel for a petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding, including the complexity of
the factual and legal issues in the case, as well as the pro se petitioner’s ability to
investigate facts and present claims, Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.
1990), and that courts have held, for example, that there was no abuse of discretion
1
Any person seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 or 2254 may be provided
counsel, “whenever the United States magistrate or court determines that the
interests of justice so require” and such person is “financially eligible.” 18 U.S.C.
§3006A(a)(2).
in failing to appoint counsel when no evidentiary hearing was required and the
issues in the case had been narrowed, see Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176,
1177 (9th Cir. 1990), or the issues were “straightforward and capable of resolution on
the record,” Ferguson v. Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990), or the petitioner
had “a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present forcefully and
coherently his contentions,” LaMere v. Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987), and it
appearing that, in the matter sub judice, appointment of counsel is not warranted at
this time as the legal issues are relatively uncomplicated, that there will be no need
for a hearing, and the court cannot say, at least at this point, that petitioner will
suffer prejudice if he is forced to prosecute this case on his own, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 56) is DENIED.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?