Bieros v. Bickell et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying Bieros's motion to appoint counsel 10 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/10/13. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROGER EDWARD JEROME
BIEROS,
Petitioner
v.
T. BICKELL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2567
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of the
motion (Doc. 10) to appoint counsel filed on November 19, 2013, by Roger Edward
Jerome Bieros (“Bieros”), wherein Bieros requests the court to appoint counsel to
represent him in connection with his petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus, and
the court observing that 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) permits district courts to appoint
counsel to represent indigent habeas petitioners when “the interests of justice so
require,” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), but it appearing that Bieros’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus, which alleges violations of his due process rights in the context of
proceedings before the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, does not
present complex legal or factual issues, see Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263-64
(3d Cir. 1991) (identifying merit and complexity of petitioner’s claims as factors in
determining whether to appoint counsel), and, it further appearing from his record
filings to date that Bieros is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his
petition with adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing
authority, see id. at 264 (observing that courts may decline to appoint counsel where

‘the petitioner ha[s] ‘a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present
forcefully and coherently his contentions’”), and the court thus finding that the
interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel for Bieros at this
stage of the proceedings, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that
Bieros’s motion (Doc. 10) to appoint counsel is DENIED.1

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

If the court later determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, or if
further proceedings otherwise demonstrate the need for appointed counsel, the
matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or on motion of the petitioner.