Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00347-JJF Document 20 Filed 11/O1/2007 Page1 0f3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DANIEL M. WOODS, :
Petitioner, ;
v. E Civ. No. O7-347-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, g
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER 4
Petitioner Daniel M. Woods has filed a Motion For The
Appointment Of Counsel. (D.I. 5.) Petitioner has no automatic
constitutional or statutory right to representation in a federal
habeas proceeding. See Coleman v. Thompson, 50l U.S. 722, 752
(l99l); Reese v. Eulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. l99l);
United States v. Roberson, 194 F.3d 408, 4l5 n.5 (3d Cir. l999).
A court may, however, seek representation by counsel for a
petitioner “upon a showing of special circumstances indicating
the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [petitioner] resulting
. . . from [petitioner’s] probable inability without such
assistance to present the facts and legal issues to the court in
a complex but arguably meritorious case.” Tabron v. Grace, 6
E.3d l47, l54 (Bd Cir. l993)(citing Smith—Bey v. Petsock, 74l
E.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. l984); l8 U.S.C. § 3006A
(a)(2)(B)(representation by counsel may be provided when a court
determines that the “interests of justice so require").

at if if Case 1:07-cv-00347-JJF Document 20 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 2 of 3
Instructive factors affecting a court’s decision regarding the
appointment of counsel include: (l) the merits of the
petitioner’s claim; (2) the petitioner’s ability to present his
case considering his education, literacy, experience, and the
restraints placed upon him by incarceration; (3) the complexity
of the legal issues; (4) the degree to which factual
investigation is required and the petitioner’s ability to pursue
such investigation; and (5) the degree to which the case turns on
credibility determinations or expert testimony. Tabron, 6 F.3d
at l55—l56.
Here, Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel because
he cannot afford legal representation, his incarceration limits
his ability to litigate the issues in his Petition, and he
believes that counsel would be better able to present evidence
and cross-examine witnesses. However, after reviewing
Petitioner's motion and the documents filed in the instant
proceeding, the Court concludes that the case is not so factually
or legally complex at this juncture that it requires the
appointment of counsel. Petitioner's claims appear to be fairly
“straightforward and capable of resolution on the record,” and
Petitioner appears to have a sufficient understanding of these
issues to coherently present his case. Parham v. Johnson, l26
F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir. l997)(citations omitted). It also does
not appear that expert testimony will be necessary or that the
2

Case 1:07-cv-00347-JJF Document 20 Filed 11/O1/2007 Page 3 of 3
ultimate resolution of the Petition will depend upon credibility
determinations.
IT Bl ? \ I `
0 O A ;•..4.¢4& @4-»%~ ·~
AT; UNET§D STAlE DISTRICT J FFE
`