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

Case 1 :06-cv—00356-GIVIS Document 38 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DAMONE E. FLOWERS, )
Petitioner, g
v. g Civil Action No. 06-356-GMS
THOMAS CARROLL, )
Warden, and ATTORNEY )
GENERAL OF THE STATE )
OF DELAWARE, )
Respondents. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this ;Y_-iAfl`ay of , 2007;
IT IS ORDERED that;
1. Petitioner Damone E. Flowers’ motion for summaryjudgment is DENIED. (D.I. 32.)
Flowers filed a motion for summary judgment on December 12, 2006, complaining that the State
failed to tile a timely response to his habeas petition. Although Flowers titled his motion as one
for summary judgment, the substance of the motion reveals that he is essentially asserting his
second request for a defaultjudgment. See (D.I. 21; D.I. 37.)(motion for summaryjudgment
constmed to be motion for default judgment, and order denying default motion). The record
reveals that the State filed its response on December 13, 2006. (D.I. 22.) Therefore, the court
will deny Flowers’ motion as moot.
2. Petitioner Damone E. Flowers’ motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED
without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 21; 32.) A habeas petitioner has no automatic constitutional or
statutory right to representation in a federal habeas proceeding. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501

Case 1:06-cv—00356-Gl\/IS Document 38 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
U.S. 722, 752 (1991); Reese v. Fu/comer, 946 F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991); Unitea/States v.
Roberson, 194 F.3d 408, 415 n.5 (3d Cir. 1999). However, the court may seek representation by
counsel for a habeas 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 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 Flowers’ motions, the state cotut record, and the documents filed in the instant
proceeding, the court concludes that the "interests of justice" do not warrant representation by
counsel at this time. Additionally, Flowers’ filings in the court indicate his ability to present his
case. Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 460 (3d Cir. 1997)(citations omitted).
ED S lATES DISTRICT JUDGE
F I L E D
FEB 2 7 EOS?
JL? =§Bl§T.RliT_eg\;:-zgjj Q
2