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

Case 1:04-cv-00888-JJF Document 63 Filed O3/16/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAVID L. MAYFIELD, :
Petitioner, i
v. i Civil Action No. 04-888-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, i
and M. JANE BRADY, :
Attorney General for the :
State of :
Delaware, :
Respondents. Q
O R D E R
At Wilmington this Ji§_ day of March, 2005;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner David L. Mayfield’s Motions For The Appointment
Of Counsel are DENIED without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 2; D.I.
l0; D.I. 26; D.I. 30; D.I. 37.)
Petitioner, a pgp se litigant, has no automatic
constitutional or statutory right to representation in this
federal habeas proceeding. See Coleman v. Thompson, 50l U.S.
722, 752 (l99l); Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir.
l99l); United States v. Roberson, 194 F.3d 408, 4l5 n.5 (3d Cir.
I999). However, the Court may seek representation by counsel for
Petitioner “upon a showing of special circumstances indicating
the likelihood of substantial prejudice to [petitioner] resulting

Case 1:04-cv-00888-JJF Document 63 Filed O3/16/2005 Page 2 of 3
. . . 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 may be provided when a court
determines that the “interests of justice so require").
Here, Petitioner seeks representation by counsel because he
is indigent and incarcerated, he has limited knowledge of the
law, and he has limited access to the prison law library. (0.1.
2; 0.1. 10.) Petitioner also seeks representation by counsel to
argue his medical issues and seek “adequate" medical care. (0.1
26; D.l. 30; D.l. 37.)
After reviewing Petitioner’s Motions, the Court concludes
that the “interests of justice" do not warrant representation by
counsel at this time. The state court record provides a
sufficient basis for resolving the issues raised in the Petition.
gee, eege, geeee, 946 F.2d at 263; Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669,
671 (8m Cir. 1993). Petitioner’s claims seem to be fairly
“straightforward and capable of resolution on the record," and
his filings in this Court indicate his ability to present his
case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir.
1997)(citations omitted). Further, representation by counsel is
not warranted for Petitioner’s medical claims because they are
2

Case1:O4-cv-00888-JJF Document 63 Filed O3/16/2005 Page30f3
not cognizable in this federal habeas proceeding. See, e.g.,
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); U.S. v. Soneros, 599
F.2d 946 (10“ Cir. 1979). It also does not appear that expert
testimony will be necessary or that the ultimate resolution of
the Petition will depend upon credibility determinations.
€§uTED*»TAT7S DISTRICT JU•GE
3