Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-492 PS.
November 27, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 10, 2006, Ozell Dowery, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition. Mr. Dowery also filed a motion to appoint counsel. The appointment of counsel for pro se petitioners in habeas corpus cases is a power commended to the discretion of the district court in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) ("Whenever the . . . court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who . . . is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28."). The Court must determine whether allowing the petitioner to proceed pro se would deprive him of his right to due process. Winsett v. Washington, 130 F.3d 269, 281 (7th Cir. 1997).
In the present case, Mr. Dowery asserts that appointment of counsel is necessary because the issues presented in this case are too complex for him and that he has mental conditions which interfere with his ability to think clearly. However, Mr. Dowery has already capably exhausted the remedies available in the state procedures and has drafted a coherent petition which clearly lays forth his arguments and contentions. Unlike other civil actions, a habeas corpus action does not involve intense discovery or a protracted dispositive motion process. While Mr. Dowery may file a traverse after the respondent files his response to the order to show cause, the information necessary to draft the traverse is Mr. Dowery's personal knowledge of the event and the hearing. Mr. Dowery filed this petition pro se and it is not fundamentally unfair to require him to proceed pro se. Therefore, his motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3) is DENIED.