Collins v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution, No. 1:2012cv01925 - Document 27 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying petitioner's Motion for appointment of counsel (Related Doc # 26 ).Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Collins v. Warden Ross Correctional Institution Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LORENZO COLLINS, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN, Madison Correctional Inst., Respondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:12 CV 1925 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the Motion for Court to Appointment the Federal Public Defendant ro Represent Petitioner because the Federal Public Defender Has Stated That He Would Be Pleased to Accept Appointment in This Case. (Doc #: 26.) For the following reason, the Motion is DENIED. I. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Gorrasi v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional Inst., No. 1:12 CV 65, 2012 WL 4342624 at *1 2012) (citing Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court may appoint counsel for any financially eligible person seeking relief under§ 2254 if the interests of justice so require. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the court. Gorrasi, 2012 WL 4342624 at *1 (citing Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). Factors to be considered include the complexity of the factual and legal issues in the case, as well as the petitioner’s ability to investigate facts and Dockets.Justia.com present claims. Id. (citing Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 264 (3d Cir. 1991). Circuit courts have found no abuse of a district court’s discretion when failing to appoint counsel where no evidentiary hearing was required or the issues were “straightforward and capable of resolution on the record.” Id. (quoting Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990) and citing Ferguson v. Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990) and Reese, 946 F.2d at 264.). II. Having reviewed the pending motion, the Federal Public Defender’s attached letter, and the record, the Court finds that the issues to be decided are simple, straightforward, and capable of resolution on the record. It appears that two of the five grounds for relief have been procedurally defaulted; one ground was unaccompanied by a contemporaneous objection; and only the remaining two grounds require substantive review. The Court is confident that appointment of the Federal Public Defender is unnecessary and a waste of its resources as no complex issues have been presented and no evidentiary hearing is required. Accordingly, the pending Motion is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan A. Polster November 18, 2013 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
