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.)

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