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

Case 1:05-cv—OO187—SLR Document 17 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES ST. LOUIS, )
Petitioner, g
V. ; Civil Action No. O5—l87—SLR
THOMAS CARROLL, )
Warden, and M. JANE )
BRADY, the Attorney )
General of the State )
of Delaware, )
Respondents. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this éjuh day of AdE3&*§g , 2005;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner James St. Louis' motions for representation by
counsel are denied without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 3; D.I. 9)
Petitioner, a pro gg litigant, 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.
Eulcomer, 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

Case 1:05-cv—OO187—SLR Document 17 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 2 of 2
arguably meritorious case.” Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 154 (Bd
Cir. l993)(citing Smith—Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (Bd 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").
Here, petitioner seeks representation by counsel because he
cannot afford counsel, he is unskilled in the law, and he has
limited access to the prison law library. After reviewing
petitioner’s motion and his application for habeas relief, the
court concludes that the “interests of justice" do not warrant
representation by counsel at this time.

2