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

Case 1:07-cv-00036-JJF Document 26 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
EDWARD GIBBS, JR., :
Petitioner, ;
v. ; Civ. No. 07-36-JJF
THOMAS L. CARROLL, E
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. g
O R D E R
· · · ¢3jD .
At Wilmington this __;_ day of July, 2007,
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Edward Gibbs, Jr.'s second Motion For The
Appointment Of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renew.
(D.I. 21.)
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 (Bd 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

Case 1:07-cv-00036-JJF Document 26 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
arguably meritorious case.” 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 of
justice so require").
Here, Petitioner seeks representation by counsel because he
is incarcerated with limited access to the law library, he is
unskilled in the law, he did not graduate high school, and his
habeas proceeding involves complex issues. After reviewing the
pleadings in this case, the Court concludes that the “interests
of justice" do not require the appointment of counsel
representation by counsel at this time. Admittedly,
incarceration does limit Petitioner’s ability to investigate the
facts and law of his case. Nevertheless, he does, in fact, have
access to the prison law library. Further, the Court does not
believe that this case is, at present, so factually or legally
complex 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, 126 F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir.
l997)(citations omitted). It also does not appear that expert
testimony will be necessary or that the ultimate resolution of
2

Case 1:07-cv-00036-JJF Document 26 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
the petition will depend upon credibility determinations.
UNf ST ES_` DISTRICT DGE
3