Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine

D. Nebraska

Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine

DecidedJune 27, 2022

Docket8:22-cv-00089

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine, (D. Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LARRY SENTENEY,

Petitioner, 8:22CV89

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT FRAKES,

Respondent.

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Filing 11.) “[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). As a general rule, counsel will not be appointed unless the case is unusually complex or the petitioner’s ability to investigate and articulate the claims is unusually impaired or an evidentiary hearing is required. See, e.g., Wiseman v. Wachendorf, 984 F.3d 649, 655 (8th Cir. 2021); Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558–59 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 984 (2000); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). See also Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring appointment of counsel if an evidentiary hearing is warranted). The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing 11) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Dated this 27th day of June, 2022.

BY THE COURT: Kichard G. Avy Richard G. “ Senior United States District 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 DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LARRY SENTENEY,

Petitioner, 8:22CV89

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT FRAKES,

Respondent.

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Filing 11.) “[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the discretion of the trial court.” McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). As a general rule, counsel will not be appointed unless the case is unusually complex or the petitioner’s ability to investigate and articulate the claims is unusually impaired or an evidentiary hearing is required. See, e.g., Wiseman v. Wachendorf, 984 F.3d 649, 655 (8th Cir. 2021); Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558–59 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 984 (2000); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). See also Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring appointment of counsel if an evidentiary hearing is warranted). The court has carefully reviewed the record and finds there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing 11) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Dated this 27th day of June, 2022.

BY THE COURT: Kichard G. Avy Richard G. “ Senior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Senteney v. Sabatka-Rine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senteney-v-sabatka-rine-ned-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack