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

Case 1:07-cv—OOO12-GMS Document 29 Filed 09/04/2007 Page1 of2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NORMAN INGRAM, )
Petitioner, g
v. ) Civ. Action No. 07-12-***
THOMAS CARROLL, g
Warden, and ATTORNEY )
GENERAL OF THE STATE )
OF DELAWARE, )
Respondents. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this L clay of 07;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Norman Ingram's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED
without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 13)
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 (Sd 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 issues to the
court in a complex but 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. §

Case 1:07-cv—OOO12-Gl\/IS Document 29 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 2 of 2
3006A (a)(2)(B)(representation by counsel may be provided when a court determines
thaththe "interests otjustice so require").
Here, Ingram alleges that counsel should be appointed because he is unable to
afford counsel, his constitutional rights have been violated, and the issues he raises are
complex. However, after reviewing Ingram's motion and the documents filed in the
instant proceeding, the court concludes that the case is not so factually or legally
complex that it requires the appointment of counsel at this juncture. Ingram's claims
appear to be fairly "straightfoiward and capable of resolution on the record," and Ingram
appears to have a sufficient understanding of these issues to coherently present his
case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 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.
oflor A e ary Pa ge
U.S. gistrate Judge
2