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

Case 1 :04-cv-01435-GIVIS Document 22 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES W. RILEY, )
Petitioner, j
v. g Civil Action No. O4-1435-GMS
THOMAS CARROLL, g
Warden, and CARL C. )
DANBERG, Attomey )
General of the State of )
Delaware, )
Respondents. l
O R D E R
At Wilmington thisqgiltéy of March, 2006;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner James W. Riley’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED without
prejudice to renew. (D.I. 10.; D.I. 20.) A habeas 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); UnitedStates v.
Roberson, 194 F .3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999). However, the court may seek representation by
cotmsel for a habeas 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. § 3006A (a)(2)(B)(representation by counsel

Case 1:04-cv—01435-G|\/IS Document 22 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
may be provided when a court determines that the "interests of j ustice so require").
Here, Riley seeks representation by counsel "for the limited purpose of obtaining [his]
entire case files [sic] from [his] stand-by trial counsel . . . who is presently in possession of them
now." (D.I. 10; D.I. 20.) After reviewing Riley’s motions, the state court record, 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. Additionally, Riley’s filings in the court
indicate his ability to 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.
x
f
UNI ,ED STATES STRIC JUDGE
2