Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:02-CV-176-C
October 4, 2002
ORDER
Petitioner Ramiro Perez-Becerra has filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel to assist him with his pending petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
A court may appoint counsel to represent a person pursuing federal habeas corpus relief 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Rules 6(a) and 8(c). Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. However, there is no Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel for prisoners collaterally attacking their convictions. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987). See also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (holding that the "Constitution guarantees no right to counsel on habeas"); and Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855, 859 (5th Cir. 1992). If a court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve the habeas petition, the court must appoint counsel; but "until the judge decides to hold a hearing, he has discretion over whether to appoint counsel." United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81, 84 (5th Cir. 1993). In making this discretionary determination, the 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." Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994). See Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Texas, 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that in a civil rights case, the court should base the decision to appoint counsel on many factors, including the type and complexity of the case; the plaintiff's ability to adequately investigate and present his case; the presence of evidence which consists of conflicting testimony so as to require skill in presentation of the evidence and cross-examination; and the likelihood that appointment will benefit the plaintiff the court, and the defendants).
The Court has considered Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel and finds that at this time, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his case is so legally or factually complex that he is unable to adequately investigate and present his claim. The Court, therefore, finds that the "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" should be denied.
SO ORDERED.