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


File Size: 16.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: August 13, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 351 Words, 2,160 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/39584/26.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware ( 16.9 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:08-cv-00027-SLR Document 26 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SA|-lH HALL, aka CECIL )
HALL, )
Petitioner, )
v. ) Civ. No. 08-27-SLR
PERRY PHELPS, )
Warden, and ATTORNEY )
GENERAL OF THE STATE )
OF DELAWARE, )
Respondents. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this ll1·- day of August, 2008;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Salih HaII’s motion for representation by counsel is DENIED without
prejudice to renew. (D.I. 10) Petitioner seeks representation by counsel because he
believes the claims asserted in his habeas application are legally complex and there is
a reasonable chance the claims are meritorious. g
Petitioner has no automatic constitutional or statutory right to representation in a
federal habeas proceeding. E 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

Case 1:08-cv-00027-SLR Document 26 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 2 of 2
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").
After reviewing petitioner’s motion and the documents tiled in the instant
proceeding, the court concludes that the "lnterests ofjustice" 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.
UNITED STATgS DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Case 1:08-cv-00027-SLR

Document 26

Filed 08/13/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00027-SLR

Document 26

Filed 08/13/2008

Page 2 of 2