Beswick v. Barr

S.D. Mississippi

Beswick v. Barr

DecidedMay 5, 2020

Docket5:20-cv-00098

StatusUnknown

This text of Beswick v. Barr (Beswick v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beswick v. Barr, (S.D. Miss. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

STEVE BESWICK PETITIONER

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-98-DCB-MTP

WILLIAM BARR, et al. RESPONDENTS

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [3]. Petitioner represents that he does not have the financial resources to obtain counsel and he lacks the necessary education to represent himself in this habeas corpus matter. “Whenever the United States Magistrate Judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section 2241….” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). While Petitioner has established that he does not have the resources to afford counsel, he has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The Fifth Circuit has held that even if a petitioner raises many issues, that alone does not require the appointment of counsel in a habeas matter. Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Additionally, the “pro se brief adequately highlights the issues and the pertinent facts….” Id; see also Sims v. Denmark, 2014 WL 3573663, at *3 (S.D. Miss. July 21, 2014). The Court finds that appointment of pro bono counsel is not appropriate at this time, especially after considering the lengthy and detailed Petition [1] and request for temporary restraining order submitted by Petitioner.1 Petitioner has been able to sufficiently present his

1 Petitioner did have sufficient assistance to file a 484-page petition that contained letters and contributions from many individuals and religious leaders. position and arguments to the Court highlighting the issues and pertinent facts. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [3] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of May, 2020. s/Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

STEVE BESWICK PETITIONER

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-98-DCB-MTP

WILLIAM BARR, et al. RESPONDENTS

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [3]. Petitioner represents that he does not have the financial resources to obtain counsel and he lacks the necessary education to represent himself in this habeas corpus matter. “Whenever the United States Magistrate Judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who is seeking relief under section 2241….” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). While Petitioner has established that he does not have the resources to afford counsel, he has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. The Fifth Circuit has held that even if a petitioner raises many issues, that alone does not require the appointment of counsel in a habeas matter. Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Additionally, the “pro se brief adequately highlights the issues and the pertinent facts….” Id; see also Sims v. Denmark, 2014 WL 3573663, at *3 (S.D. Miss. July 21, 2014). The Court finds that appointment of pro bono counsel is not appropriate at this time, especially after considering the lengthy and detailed Petition [1] and request for temporary restraining order submitted by Petitioner.1 Petitioner has been able to sufficiently present his

1 Petitioner did have sufficient assistance to file a 484-page petition that contained letters and contributions from many individuals and religious leaders. position and arguments to the Court highlighting the issues and pertinent facts. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application for Pro Bono Counsel [3] is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of May, 2020. s/Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Beswick v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beswick-v-barr-mssd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack