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

Case 1 :07-cv—00284-GIVIS Document 51 Filed 04/15/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
STEVEN W. KRAFCHICK, )
Petitioner, j
v. j Civil Action No. 07-284-GMS
PERRY PHELPS, Warden, l
and JOSEPH R. BIDEN III, )
Attorney General of the State of )
Delaware, )
Respondents} l
O R D E R
At Wilmington this jjfcllay of li @*7 , 2008;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Steven W. Krafchick’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED
without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 31)
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. Roberson, 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 circumstances indicating the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [petitioner] resulting
. . . from [petitioner’s] probable inability without such assistance to present the facts and legal
'Warden Perry Phelps assumed office in January 2008, replacing warden Thomas Carroll,
an original party to this proceeding. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(l).

Case 1 :07-cv—OO284-GIVIS Document 51 Filed O4/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case." Ykzbron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147,
154 (3d Cir. 1993)(citing Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (Eid 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").
Krafchick requests the appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford an attorney,
he is unskilled in the law, and the matters raised in his petition are complex.
After reviewing Krafchick’s motion and the documents filed inthe 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. Krafchick’s claims appear to be fairly "st:raightforward and capable of
resolution on the record," and Krafchick appears to have a sufficient understanding of these
issues to coherently present his case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3c. 454, 460 (3d Cir.
1997)(citations omitted). It also does not appear that expert testimony will be necessary or that
the ultimate resolution of the petition will depend upon credibility determinations.
CHIQF, ED QTATES JUDGE
..5} L. E. Q
[ AFH 1 5 EGGS
1 L———————-——-»
S us. oistaicr comm
t,_.--ElEE?Z*}i€E I ?E.E.E’El&£*F E
2