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

Case 1:04-cv-00870-JJF Document 23 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CECIL BROWNE, :
Petitioner, E
v. E Civil Action No. O4-870-JJF
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, ;
and M. JANE BRADY, :
Attorney General for the :
State of :
Delaware, :
Respondents. E
O R D E R
At Wilmington this L3i_ day of { §E?§QEg , 2005:
IT IS ORDERED that:
Petitioner Cecil Browne's “Motion(s) For Appointment Of
Counsel And For An Evidentiary Hearing,” filed pursuant to Rule
8(a),(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.
foll. § 2254, are DENIED without prejudice to renew. {D.I. ll;
D.I. 19.)
The AEDPA limits a district court's discretion to conduct
evidentiary hearings on habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e);
Campbell v. Vaughn, 209 F.3d 280, 286-87 (3d Cir. 200l). In
determining whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing, a federal
habeas court should focus “on whether a new evidentiary hearing
would be meaningful, in that a new hearing would have the
potential to advance the petitioner’s claim.” Id. at 287. A

Case 1:04-cv-00870-JJF Document 23 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 2 of 3
court properly refuses a request to conduct an evidentiary
hearing where the petitioner fails “‘to forecast any evidence
beyond that already contained in the record' that would otherwise
help his cause, ‘or otherwise explain how his claim would be
advanced by an evidentiary hearing.'” Campbell, 208 F.3d at 287
(quoting Cardwell, 152 F.3d at 338).
Although a pgp pp litigant has no automatic constitutional
or statutory right to representation in a federal habeas
proceeding, Sgp 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 (Bd Cir. 1999), a
federal habeas court is required to appoint counsel if it
determines that an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Rule 8(c),
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If a
court determines that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted,
then the court may 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 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
2

Case 1:04-cv-00870-JJF Document 23 Filed O9/O1/2005 Page 3 of 3
determines that the “interests of justice so require").
Here, because Petitioner fails to state how an evidentiary
hearing will help to advance his claims, the Court finds that an
evidentiary hearing is not warranted. Consequently, the Court is
not required to appoint an attorney to represent Petitioner. The
Court also concludes that the “interests of justice" do not
warrant representation by counsel at this time. Accordingly, the
Court denies Petitioner’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and
representation by counsel.
CI/(J!/C;-·\·
UN T D S T _ DISTRICT JU
3