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

Case 1:07-cv-00233-JJF Document 9 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BEN ROTEN, :
Petitioner, E
v. i Civ. No. 07-233-JJF
MICHAEL DELOY, Z
Warden, and ATTORNEY :
GENERAL OF THE STATE :
OF DELAWARE, :
Respondents. ;
O R D E R
At Wilmington this __l_ day of October, 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Ben Roten’s Motion For The Appointment Of Counsel
is DENIED without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 4.)
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 1:07-cv-00233-JJF Document 9 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 2 of 3
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"). Instructive factors affecting a court’s
decision regarding the appointment of counsel include: (1) the
merits of the petitioner’s claim; (2) the petitioner’s ability to
present his case considering his education, literacy, experience,
and the restraints placed upon him by incarceration; (3) the
complexity of the legal issues; (4) the degree to which factual
investigation is required and the petitioner’s ability to pursue
such investigation; and (5) the degree to which the case turns on
credibility determinations or expert testimony. Tabron, 6 F.3d
at 155-156.
Here, Petitioner requests the appointment of counsel because
he lacks legal knowledge and feels that an attorney would be
“better suited” to explain his case. However, after reviewing
Petitioner’s motion and the documents filed in the instant
proceeding, the Court concludes that the case is not so factually
or legally complex at this juncture that it requires the
appointment of counsel. Petitioner’s claims appear to be fairly
“straightforward and capable of resolution on the record,” and
Petitioner appears to have a sufficient understanding of these
issues to coherently present his case. Parham v. Johnson, 126
F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir. 1997)(citations omitted). lt also does
2

Case 1:07-cv-00233-JJF Document 9 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 3 of 3
not appear that expert testimony will be necessary or that the
ultimate resolution of the Petition will depend upon credibility
determinations.
` sm : ' -
ui U ,7 , I
U§Q% i S A w DISTRICT J’DGE
3