David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility

S.D. Alabama

David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility

DecidedFebruary 25, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00492

StatusUnknown

This text of David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility (David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility, (S.D. Ala. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID RANDALL POYNER, ) #139329, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civ. A. No. 25-492-KD-MU v. ) ) KENNETH PETERS, ) Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This action is before the Court on Petitioner David Randall Poyner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 13) in which he requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in this § 2254 action. Petitioner contends that he does not have the ability to present or investigate his own case and does not possess the funds to hire outside counsel. Id. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for decision, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and General Local Rule 72(a)(2)(R). Although a habeas petitioner may request that legal counsel be appointed to represent him, such an appointment is within the Court’s discretion. See Wright v. Johnson, No. 5:15-cv-00423-CAR-CHW, 2017 WL 3167326, *4 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 30006A(a)(2)(B)). No constitutional right to counsel exists in federal habeas corpus proceedings. McGriff v. Dep’t of Corr., 338 F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). The Court may appoint counsel for a § 2254 petitioner if the Court finds that the petitioner is financially eligible and determines that “the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 30006A(a)(2)(B). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel at this juncture of the proceedings. A review of the petition (Doc. 1) and Petitioner's supplemental filings (Docs. 12, 14) reveals that Petitioner was able to articulate his claim and identify the factual allegations supporting his claim. In addition,

the applicable legal doctrines are not unique or complex. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 13) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of February, 2026. s/P. BRADLEY MURRAY 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 ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID RANDALL POYNER, ) #139329, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civ. A. No. 25-492-KD-MU v. ) ) KENNETH PETERS, ) Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER This action is before the Court on Petitioner David Randall Poyner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 13) in which he requests that the Court appoint counsel to represent him in this § 2254 action. Petitioner contends that he does not have the ability to present or investigate his own case and does not possess the funds to hire outside counsel. Id. This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for decision, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and General Local Rule 72(a)(2)(R). Although a habeas petitioner may request that legal counsel be appointed to represent him, such an appointment is within the Court’s discretion. See Wright v. Johnson, No. 5:15-cv-00423-CAR-CHW, 2017 WL 3167326, *4 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 30006A(a)(2)(B)). No constitutional right to counsel exists in federal habeas corpus proceedings. McGriff v. Dep’t of Corr., 338 F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). The Court may appoint counsel for a § 2254 petitioner if the Court finds that the petitioner is financially eligible and determines that “the interests of justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 30006A(a)(2)(B). Petitioner has not demonstrated that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel at this juncture of the proceedings. A review of the petition (Doc. 1) and Petitioner's supplemental filings (Docs. 12, 14) reveals that Petitioner was able to articulate his claim and identify the factual allegations supporting his claim. In addition,

the applicable legal doctrines are not unique or complex. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 13) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this the 25th day of February, 2026. s/P. BRADLEY MURRAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters, Warden, Fountain Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-randall-poyner-v-kenneth-peters-warden-fountain-correctional-alsd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack