Rockwell v. Stephens

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order: On January 12, 2015, this Court granted the motion of petitioner Kwame A. Rockwell for the appointment of counsel subject to the satisfaction of the filing-fee requirement. (ECF No. 3 ) On February 2, 2015, appointed c ounsel filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on behalf of Rockwell. (ECF No. 5 ) On February 20, 2015, appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to an unforeseen conflict of interest. (ECF No. 6 ) On April 20, 2 015, appointed counsel filed a motion to remain appointed because she had resolved the conflict of interest. (ECF No. 7 ) Rockwell's application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 5 ) is GRANTED and the filing-fee requirement is satisfied. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 4/21/2015) (trs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
KWAME A. ROCKWELL,
Petitioner,
V.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-01055-O
(Death Penalty Case)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On January 12, 2015, this Court granted the motion of petitioner Kwame A. Rockwell for
the appointment of counsel subject to the satisfaction of the filing-fee requirement. (ECF No. 3.)
On February 2, 2015, appointed counsel filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
on behalf of Rockwell. (ECF No. 5.) On February 20, 2015, appointed counsel filed a motion to
withdraw due to an unforeseen conflict of interest. (ECF No. 6.) On April 20, 2015, appointed
counsel filed a motion to remain appointed because she had resolved the conflict of interest. (ECF
No. 7.)
The Court finds that the motion for counsel to remain in this case is proper because no actual
conflict of interest came into existence. Therefore, the motion to remain (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED
and the prior motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 6) is DENIED as withdrawn.
Rockwell’s motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) duly attached a certificate of inmate trust
account showing that Rockwell had $57.25 in his inmate trust account on January 23, 2015.1 This

1

The transactional history appears to show small deposits as a Christmas Action and by the Salvation Army.

amount is above the threshold amount of $50.00 set by a local rule that became effective in 1977 and
applies to both capital and non-capital habeas petitioners regardless of whether counsel is appointed.
See Misc. Order 13 at ¶ 9 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 1, 1977). In contrast, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allow financially eligible habeas petitioners for whom counsel is appointed to proceed without
prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and, importantly, without filing the affidavit
required to proceed IFP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(7). This would relieve appointed counsel from
performing the services necessary to obtain the documentation required to satisfy the filing fee
requirement in addition to her or his other duties in furtherance of the interests of the habeas
petitioner. These attorney services by appointed counsel qualify for compensation by this Court at
the current rate of $181.00 per hour regardless of whether the application is granted. If the IFP
application is not granted, then the appointment is subject to being canceled if the $5.00 filing fee
is not subsequently paid by the habeas petitioner. The Court cannot reimburse appointed counsel
for making this payment out of her or his own pocket even if paid to protect the death-row inmate’s
“mandatory right to qualified legal counsel” under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) recognized in McFarland
v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 854 (1994). See Guide to Judiciary Policy § 230.66.30.
This threshold amount is set by local rule and “a district court has discretion to waive or
excuse noncompliance with its local rules.” Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. IAP Worldwide Servs.,
Inc., 533 F. App’x 912, 922 n.35 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Quick v. Peoples Bank of Cullman Cnty.,
993 F.2d 793, 798-99 (11th Cir. 1993)). Rockwell’s financial condition qualifies him for the
appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2). Therefore, the Court finds that the
requirement of this local rule should be waived in this case.

2

Rockwell’s application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED and the filing-fee
requirement is satisfied.
SO ORDERED on this 21st day of April, 2015.

_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3