Davis v. Sterling

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., ) C/A No. 0:19-2720-TLW-PJG Petitioner, vs. ORDER Bryan Sterling, Director SCDC; Tonya James, Warden KER CT, Jeannine Price, Casemanager ) KER Cl, ) ) Respondent. ) oo) Petitioner Dennis Rodger Davis, Jr., a self-represented state prisoner, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 23.) There is no right to appointed counsel in habeas cases. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,555 (1987); Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Attorneys may be appointed for a person “seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28” when “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel may be appointed when counsel is necessary for effective discovery and must be appointed when evidentiary hearings are required. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rules 6(a) & 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. At this time, no evidentiary hearing has been set in this case and the questions presented are not so complex as to require an attorney to effectively argue them for Petitioner. Based on the pleadings before the court, Petitioner writes well and appears capable of addressing the legal issues. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for counsel to be appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), is denied.

Page | of 2 O50

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 10, 2020 Paige J. aC Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2