Maldonado v. Marthenz

CourtDistrict Court, D. New Mexico
DecidedFebruary 22, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-00507
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Maldonado v. Marthenz, (D.N.M. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

STEVEN L. MALDONADO,

Petitioner,

vs. No. CV 20-00507 MV/GJF

FNU Martinez,

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL THIS MATTER is before the Court on the New Mexico state court “Form 9-704 Order for Appointment for Habeas Corpus Proceedings Under Rule 5-802 NMRA” filed by Petitioner Steven L. Maldonado (Doc. 8). The Court construes Petitioner’s filing as a request for appointment of counsel1 and will deny the Motion. Petitioner is a prisoner in the custody of the State of New Mexico and seeks habeas corpus review of his New Mexico conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. There is no right to appointment of counsel in a habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Instead, the decision whether to request assistance of counsel rests in the sound discretion of the Court. See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991); Swazo v. Wyoming Dep't of Corr. State Penitentiary Warden, 23 F.3d 332, 333 (10th Cir. 1994). In determining whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the litigant's ability to investigate the facts and to present his claims. Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir.2004).

1 The Court notifies Petitioner that this is a federal court proceeding, not a state court proceeding, and neither New Mexico Rule 5-802 NMRA nor New Mexico Form 9-704 have any application to this proceeding. The Court has reviewed the Petition and subsequent filings in light of the foregoing factors. Petitioner appears to understand the issues in the case and to be representing himself in a capable manner. See Lucero v. Gunter, 52 F.3d 874, 878 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. IT IS ORDERED that the “Form 9-704 Order for Appointment for Habeas Corpus Proceedings Under Rule 5-802 NMRA” filed by Petitioner Steven L. Maldonado (Doc. 8) is DENIED. ; wee, Jf /] <= <= /ltMnAgt THE HONORABLE GREGORY J. FOURATT UNITED SPATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maldonado v. Marthenz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maldonado-v-marthenz-nmd-2021.