Ray v. Adams

E.D. Missouri

Ray v. Adams

DecidedJanuary 31, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00165

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ray v. Adams, (E.D. Mo. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

HUBERT J. RAY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00165-MTS ) RICHARD ADAMS, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on self-represented Petitioner Hubert J. Ray’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Doc. [2]. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion without prejudice. There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to the appointment of counsel in a federal habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that it has never “been held that there is a constitutional right to counsel in a habeas action”). Rather, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Williams v. State of Mo., 640 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir. 1981). A court may appoint counsel for a self-represented petitioner when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “To determine whether appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district court should consider the legal complexity of the

case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors.” Abdulla v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Petitioner has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel if the case progression warrants it. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. [2], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 31st day of January 2024. jd Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

HUBERT J. RAY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-00165-MTS ) RICHARD ADAMS, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on self-represented Petitioner Hubert J. Ray’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Doc. [2]. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion without prejudice. There is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to the appointment of counsel in a federal habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that it has never “been held that there is a constitutional right to counsel in a habeas action”). Rather, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Williams v. State of Mo., 640 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir. 1981). A court may appoint counsel for a self-represented petitioner when “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “To determine whether appointment of counsel is required for habeas petitioners with nonfrivolous claims, a district court should consider the legal complexity of the

case, the factual complexity of the case, the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claim, and any other relevant factors.” Abdulla v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Petitioner has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel if the case progression warrants it. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Doc. [2], is DENIED without prejudice. Dated this 31st day of January 2024. jd Pe UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ray v. Adams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-adams-moed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack