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

Case 1:07-cv-00334-JJF Document 18 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE é
John Folkes : Ei
Plaintiff, {
v. E c. A. NO. 07-334-***
: EQ, ?f»l§;
Thomas Carroll, Warden : 7
Defendant. :

At Wilmington this 1#"‘ day of July, 2007.
Petitioner requests leave of the court to amend his habeas corpus petition
to add additional allegations and facts, with supporting legal arguments. D.|. 15. This
request was filed before any responsive pleading was filed by defendant. In his motion,
petitioner outlines the additional bases petition and the facts he maintains are in support
thereof. In light of the timing of the motion, the liberal approach to amendments to
pleadings in thisjurisdiction and the preference ofthe court to have all legal issues before
it in rendering decisions on the merits, petitioner’s request is GRANTED.
Petitionerfurther requests appointment of counsel. D.|. 9. Petitioners do not
have an automatic constitutional or statutory right to representation in federal habeas
proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Reese v. Fulcomer,
946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Robertson, 194 F.3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d
Cir. 1999). A court may, however, seek legal representation for a petitioner "upon a
showing of special circumstance indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to
[petitioner] resulting . . . from [petitioner’s] probably inability without such assistance to
present facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case."

Case 1:07-cv-00334-JJF Document 18 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 2
Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 154 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 f.2d 22,
26 (3d Cir. 1984); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (representation by counsel may be provided
when a court determines that the "interests ofjustice so require").
Petitioner, in the instant matter, seeks appointment of counsel because he is
incarcerate, he is unable to afford counsel, he claims that the legal issues are complex and
he is unskilled in the law and he contends that his counsel was ineffective. After reviewing
petitloner's motion and documents filed in the instant proceedings, the court concludes that
the "interest ofjustice" do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. Although
petitioner is detained and he claims improprleties in his trial and inadequacy of his
representation, the court does not believe that this case is, at present, so factually or
legally complex that it requires the appointment or counsel. Petitioner’s claims appear to
be "straightforward and capable of resolution on the record" to date. Further, petitioner has
a sufficient understanding ofthe issues and has capably articulated his position sufficiently
to coherently present his case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir. 1997). It
also does not appear that expert testimony will be necessary orthat the ultimate resolution
of the petition will be dependent upon credibility determinations. Therefore, petitioner’s
request for appointment of counsel, D.I. 9, is DENIED, with leave to refile.
/s/ Mary Pat Thynge
UNITED STATES IVIAGISTRATE JUDGE