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

Case 1:06-cv—00003-SLR Document 18 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
NATHAN L. GUINN, )
Petitioner, g
v. ) Civ. No. 06—3—SLR
THOMAS CARROLL, g
Warden, and CARL C. )
DANBERG, Attorney )
General of the State of )
Delaware, )
RespondentS. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this ;j§b day of June, 2006;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Nathan L. Guinn's motion for representation by
counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 16)
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 1:06-cv—00003-SLR Document 18 Filed 06/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
Cir. l993)(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, unskilled in the law, and has limited access to
the law library. After reviewing petitioner’s motion and the
documents filed in the instant proceeding, the court concludes
that the “interests of justice" do not warrant representation by
counsel at this time. It also does not appear that expert
testimony will be necessary or that the ultimate resolution of
the petition will depend upon credibility determinations.
vaaa
2