Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00281-JJF Document 9 Filed 07/23/2007 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT E. EATON, :
Petitioner, i
v. Q Civ. N0. 07-281-JJF
THOMAS L. CARROLL, E
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. E
O R D E R
At Wilmington this ;§Q§t day of July, 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner Robert E. Eaton’s Motion For The Appointment
Of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 2.)
Petitioner has no automatic constitutional or statutory
right to representation in a federal habeas proceeding. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Reese v.
Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v.
Roberson, 194 F.3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999). 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 F.3d 147, 154 {3d

Case 1:07-cv-00281-JJF Document 9 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 4
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 of
justice so require"). Instructive factors affecting a court’s
decision regarding the appointment of counsel include: (1) 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 155-156.
Here, Petitioner has filed a form habeas application
asserting ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of
interest. According to Petitioner, he has a “debilitating
disease" that prevents him from providing further briefing on
that claim, and therefore, he seeks representation by counsel.
Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed in the instant
habeas proceeding because the Court appointed counsel to
represent Petitioner in a separate action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 currently pending before the Court.}
'The Court requested representation for Petitioner in his §
1983 proceeding after determining that his § 1983 claims had some
arguable merit in fact and law, that the issues were complex,
2

Case 1:07-cv-00281-JJF Document 9 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 4
Having reviewed Petitioner’s filings, the Court cannot
conclude that the “interests of justice" require the appointment
of counsel at this point in time. The fact that the Court
requested representation for Petitioner in another case does not
determine the issue of representation in the instant proceeding.
Petitioner does not provide any details about his “medical
condition,” or how his condition impairs his ability to meet the
basic pleading requirements explicitly stated in the form habeas
application.2 The Court notes that Petitioner’s medical
condition did not prevent him from providing the Court with a
coherent, if unsupported, argument for the appointment of
counsel, thereby indicating that Petitioner is also capable of
providing additional basic information regarding his habeas
claim. Petitioner’s filings indicate that he has the ability to
“present the facts and legal issues to the court" without the
assistance of an attorney.
Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that, as the case
proceeds, the complexity of the factual issues or the need for
additional legal briefing may require the representation by
that Petitioner could not afford counsel, and that Petitioner’s
ability to represent himself was substantially impaired by his
medical condition. Eaton v. Snyder, C.A. No. Ol-733-JJF, D.I.
108.
2The standard form habeas application, used by Petitioner,
clearly states that a petitioner is only required to provide
specific facts supporting the habeas claims, and that a
petitioner should not argue or cite law.
3

Case 1:07-cv-00281-JJF D0cument9 Filed 07/23/2007 Page40f4
counsel at a later date. §eg Tabron, 6 F.3d at 156 (recognizing
that, under § 1915, the court may sua sponte seek representation
for a litigant at “any point in the litigation”}. Thus, the
Court is willing to revisit this issue either sua sponte or upon
proper motion should it subsequently appear that Petitioner’s
claims are meritorious and that representation by counsel is
necessary to afford the petitioner a full and fair opportunity to
litigate his case.
2. Petitioner filed a letter indicating that he could not
return the AEDPA Election Form until the Court ruled upon his
Motion For The Appointment of Counsel. In light of the
foregoing, Petitioner shall have until August 18, 2007 to file
his AEDPA Election Form.
TA D1sTR1cT ' DGE
4