Hussain v. Lowe et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING ptnr's motion for appt of cnsl 15 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/7/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MUNIR HUSSAIN,
Petitioner
v.
CRAIG A. LOWE, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-2499
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of June, 2017, upon consideration of petitioner’s
motion (Doc. 15) for appointment of counsel, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)
(“Whenever . . . the court determines that the interests of justice so require,
representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who . . . is
seeking relief under [28 U.S.C.] section 2241 . . .”), and it appearing that the claims
of the petition for writ of habeas corpus do not present complex legal or factual
issues, see id. (remarking on wide discussion of issues), and, it further appearing
that petitioner is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with
adequate factual investigation and appropriate citations to governing authority,
see Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991) (identifying merit and
complexity of petitioner’s claims as factors in whether to appoint counsel); Blasi
v. Attorney Gen., 30 F. Supp. 2d 481, 489 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (citing Tabron v. Grace, 6
F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)), aff’d, 275 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2001), and the court finding
that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel for

petitioner at this stage of the proceedings, see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 15) for appointment of counsel is DENIED. If
the court determines that an evidentiary hearing should be held or if further
proceedings otherwise demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be
reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of petitioner.

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