Cameron v. South Carolina, The State of et al
ORDER granting 28 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response. Petitioner's response to Respondent's 28 motion for summary judgment is now due by November 12, 2015. 29 MOTION to Appoint Counsel is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 10/16/2015. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ronald Francis Cameron,
Warden of Broad River Correctional
C/A No.: 1:15-1355-TMC-SVH
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motions for appointment of
counsel [ECF No. 29] and for an extension of time to respond to Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment [ECF No. 28].
Appointment of counsel
Petitioner requests that the court appoint counsel for him. Petitioner has no
constitutional right to counsel in his federal habeas proceedings. See Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555–56 (1987) (no constitutional right to counsel beyond first
appeal of right); U.S. v. Riley, 21 F. App’x 139, 141–42 (4th Cir. 2001); Hunt v. Nuth, 57
F.3d 1327, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995) (no constitutional right to counsel during federal habeas).
The court may, in its discretion, however, appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when
“the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (West Supp. 1993); see also
Riley, 21 F. App’x at 142.
The interests of justice require the court to appoint counsel when the district court
conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition. See Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469 (8th
Cir. 1994); Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. The appointment of counsel is discretionary when no evidentiary hearing is
necessary. See Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471. In exercising its discretion, the court should
consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and
Petitioner’s ability to investigate and present her claims, along with any other relevant
factors. Id.; see also Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990). Where the
issues involved can be properly resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district
court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel. See
Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.
At this juncture, the court does not anticipate the need for an evidentiary hearing,
as the case will likely be resolved on the basis of the state court record. Moreover,
Petitioner in his filings to date has demonstrated competency in the presentation of his
case and arguments. If the court elects to hold an evidentiary hearing, Petitioner may
renew his motion or the court may appoint counsel sua sponte at that time. For the
foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [ECF No. 29] is denied.
Motion for an extension of time
Petitioner requests additional time to respond to Respondent’s motion for
summary judgment. [ECF No. 28]. Petitioner’s motion is granted, and Petitioner’s
response to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is now due by November 12,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 16, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate 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?