Opinion
Case No. 1:03-cr-80, Case No. 1:08-cv-04.
September 15, 2008
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court is the Defendant's letter to the Court filed on September 8, 2008, that the Court will treat as a motion for appointment of counsel. See Docket No. 114. On September 8, 2008, the defendant, Patrick Timothy McMorrow, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Docket No. 113. McMorrow contends that the appointment of counsel is necessary because he does not have legal training and does not have access to a law library or other legal assistance.
There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings. See Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558 (8th Cir. 2000); Blair v. Armontrout, 916 F.2d 1310, 1332 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 771 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that a habeas corpus proceeding is a civil proceeding to which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel afforded for criminal proceedings does not apply). However, the Court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner at any time if it finds that the "the interests of justice so require." See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). If a court conducts an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the interests of justice require that the petitioner be appointed counsel. See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases in the United States District Courts; see also Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). "If no evidentiary hearing is necessary, the appointment of counsel is discretionary." Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573.
When exercising its discretion, a court should determine whether, given the particular circumstances of the case, "the appointment of counsel would benefit the petitioner and the court to such an extent that `the interests of justice so require' it."Id. (citing 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006A(a)(2) and Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990)). Thus, a court should consider a number of relevant factors, including the factual complexity of the case and the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claim. See Abdullah, 18 F.3d at 573; see also Battle, 902 F.2d at 702.
The interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel for McMorrow at this stage of the proceedings and there is no necessity for an evidentiary hearing at this time. Moreover, although McMorrow raises a myriad of claims in his petition for habeas corpus relief, neither the claims nor the facts giving rise to them appear to be complex. Consequently, McMorrow's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 114) is DENIED without prejudice.