Bedford v. State

Full title: NORMAND BEDFORD v. STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, A.T. WALL, Director, Rhode…

Court: United States District Court, D. Rhode Island

Date published: Sep 4, 2007

C.A. No. 07 - 144 S (D.R.I. Sep. 4, 2007)

Opinion

C.A. No. 07 — 144 S.

September 4, 2007

Memorandum and Order

JACOB HAGOPIAN, Magistrate Judge

Presently before the Court is the motion of the pro se petitioner, Normand Bedford, to appoint counsel to represent him in this instant habeas corpus petition.

There is no constitutional right to representation by counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990 (1987); Green v. Abrams, 948 F.2d 41, 46 (2^nd Cir. 1993). However, counsel may be appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h) or 18 U.S.C. § 3006A and it is discretionary with the court when "the interests of justice so require." Factors to be considered include the complexity of the legal and factual issues, and the pro se litigants' ability to investigate the facts and present the claims. See Blasi v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 30 F. Supp.2d 481, 488 (M.D. Pa. 1998).

Here, having reviewed Bedford's petition and the motions that he has filed in this case, it is clear that he has adequately presented the facts and claims of his habeas petition to the court. Accordingly, petitioner's motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.