Croom v. Lebo

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING 15 MOTION FOR RESPONSE AND DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 4/14/17. (Anderson, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION BOBBY JOE CROOM Petitioner, v. GRADY PERRY, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01053-STA-egb ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RESPONSE AND DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL Currently before the Court are the motions of Petitioner, Bobby Joe Croom, for an order directing Respondent, Grady Perry, to respond to the § 2254 petition (ECF No. 19) and for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 15.) On December 1, 2016, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to amend his petition as unnecessary and directed the Clerk to send Petitioner an amended petition form. (ECF No. 13.) To date, Petitioner has not filed an amended petition and now seeks an order directing Respondent to respond to the original petition. (ECF No. 19.) The motion is GRANTED. Respondent is ORDERED to file a response to the petition within twenty-eight (28) days of service. See Rule 5(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rules”). The response shall include the complete trial and appellate record of Petitioner’s original case and any subsequent state petitions for collateral relief. The record shall be organized and appropriately indexed.1 Distinct parts of the record shall be electronically bookmarked for ease of reference in identifying documents relevant to the state court proceedings. Pursuant to Habeas Rule 5(e), Petitioner may, if he chooses, submit a reply to Respondent’s answer or response within twenty-eight (28) days of service. Petitioner may request an extension of time to reply by filing a motion on or before the due date of his reply. The Court will address the merits of the amended petition, or of any motion filed by Respondent, after the expiration of Petitioner’s time to reply, as extended. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Petitioner asserts that he cannot afford to secure counsel on his own, that he is not trained in the law, and that he has little or no access to legal assistance at the prison. Those circumstances, which are typical of most prisoners, do not warrant appointment of counsel. See Richmond v. Settles, 450 F. App’x 448, 450 (6th Cir. 2011). Petitioner may renew his motion if his circumstances change or the complexity of the proceedings warrant appointment. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: April 14, 2017 1 Using the event “Index of State Court Record,” Respondent shall file a comprehensive index. The Index shall include the electronic bookmark references which indicate the location of distinct parts of the record (e.g., plea proceedings, pretrial hearing transcripts, voir dire, each portion of trial testimony, trial exhibits, jury instructions, verdict, each party’s briefs at each level of appeal, each court’s final ruling on appeal and collateral proceedings, etc.). The actual record shall be filed as an exhibit(s) to the Index. 2

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?