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

Case 1:06-cv—00786-SLR Document 22 Filed 07/09/2007 Paget of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LYNN HARRIS, )
Petitioner, g
v. g Civ. Action No. 06-786-***
'THOMAS CARROLL, g _ `
`§lBEZ"i.?"§t;?.i5***· I
General ofthe State of ) r—"-_-M_*—_-r_4-_l
Delaware, ) L JUL - 9 QUQ7
Respondents} )
nistnct or ottawa
O R D E R
At Wilmington this i day of July, 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Lynn Harris’ motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without
prejudice to renew. (D.I. 11)
Petitioners do not have an automatic constitutional or statutory right to
representation in federal habeas proceedings. 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 legal
representation 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
‘Attorney General Joseph R. Biden, III assumed office in January, 2007,
replacing former Attorney General Carl C. Danberg, an original party to this case. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

Case 1:06-cv—00786-SLR Document 22 Filed 07/09/2007 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 ofjustice so require").
Here, Harris seeks the appointment of counsel because he is incarcerated, he
has limited access to the law library, he is unskilled in the law, and he contends that his
appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. However, after reviewing Harris’
motion and the documents filed in the instant proceeding, the court conclude that the
"interests ofjustice" do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. Although
incarceration does limit Harris’ ability to investigate the facts and law of his case, Harris
does, in fact, have access to the prison law library. Further, the court does not believe
that this case is, at present, so factually or legally complex that it requires the
appointment of counsel. Harris’ claims appear to be fairly "straightforward and capable
of resolution on the record," and Harris 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). It also does not appear that expert testimony will be
necessary or that the ultimate resolution of the petition will depend upon credibility
determinations.
` Ho ary P t [W5
.S. L agistrate Judge
2