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

Case 1:04-cv—O1307—SLR Document 12 Filed 08/O9/2005 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ANTHONY E. MORRIS, }
Petitioner, g
v. g Civil Action No. O4—1307—SLR
RICHARD KEARNEY, g
Warden, )
Respondent. g
O R D E R
At Wilmington this _QgL day of August, 2005;
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Anthony E. Morris' motion for representation by
counsel is denied without prejudice to renew. (D.I. 11)
Petitioner, a pro ge 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 E.2d 247, 263 (Bd 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 1:04-cv—O1307—SLR Document 12 Filed 08/O9/2005 Page 2 of 2
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").
Here, petitioner seeks representation by counsel because he
cannot afford counsel, he does not have a high school degree, and
he represented himself during his criminal trial. After
reviewing petitioner’s motion 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.
The state court record provides a sufficient basis for resolving
the issues raised in the application. §ee, eege, Beeee, 946 F.2d
at 263; Boyd v. Groose, 4 F.3d 669, 671 (8m Cir. l993).
Moreover, petitioner’s claims seem to be fairly “straightforward
and capable of resolution on the record,” and his filings in this
court indicate his ability to 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.

2