Pugh v. Olsen

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: June 17, 2019
• Docket: 4:19-cv-00113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION GERALD J. PUGH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CV419-113 ) SAM OLSEN, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER Pro se petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of his request for the appointment of counsel. Doc. 8. He brings the same arguments previously evaluated, and rejected, in the Court’s Order denying appointment of counsel. Compare docs. 5 & 8. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration may be granted based only on newly-discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law or fact. In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) motions may not be used to “relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that should have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). Pugh’s “motion relie[s] on no newly-discovered evidence and demonstrate[s] no manifest error of law or fact” in the court’s order. The

Bedtow Grp. II, LLC v. Ungerleider, 684 F. App’x 839, 843 (11th Cir. 2017). As he has been told before, “[t]here is no constitutional right to

counsel in habeas proceedings.” Doc. 7 at 1 (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)); Hooks v. Wainwright, 775 F.2d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir. 1985) (“there is no automatic right to representation in a federal

habeas corpus proceeding.”). Indeed, court-appointed counsel in habeas cases is warranted only in “‘exceptional circumstances.’” Doc. 7 at 2 (citing Dean v. Barber,). Yet Pugh points to no exceptional circumstances

warranting the appointment of counsel at public expense. See doc. 8. Pugh again complains that an attorney would be better able to litigate his case, and that as a layman he feels ill-equipped and at a

disadvantage to “fight”. Doc. 8 at 2. He also accuses the Court of “discrimination,” “bias and prejudice toward [an] African American who cannot afford [an] attorney.” Id. at 3. But Pugh misunderstands: in this

Circuit, the relevant question is only whether “exceptional circumstances” warranting appointment of counsel exist (e.g., a petitioner faces the death penalty, see 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(1)), not whether an attorney might be useful for nuanced argument or case development. Pugh’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 8) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2019. Mitt (Wa CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA