From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hickerson v. Norman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Oct 20, 2015
No. 4:15-cv-01223-AGF (E.D. Mo. Oct. 20, 2015)

Opinion

No. 4:15-cv-01223-AGF

10-20-2015

ERIC BRIAN HICKERSON, Petitioner, v. JEFFERY NORMAN, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion (Doc. No. 5) for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right for a pro se habeas petitioner to have counsel appointed, although the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when necessary. Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558-59 (8th Cir. 2000). Among the factors a court should consider in making this determination are the factual and legal complexity of the case, the ability of the petitioner to present the facts and his claims, and the degree to which the petitioner and the court would benefit from such an appointment. Id. Upon review of the record, the Court does not believe that the appointment of counsel is warranted here.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Doc. No. 5.)

/s/_________

AUDREY G. FLEISSIG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of October, 2015.


Summaries of

Hickerson v. Norman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Oct 20, 2015
No. 4:15-cv-01223-AGF (E.D. Mo. Oct. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Hickerson v. Norman

Case Details

Full title:ERIC BRIAN HICKERSON, Petitioner, v. JEFFERY NORMAN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 20, 2015

Citations

No. 4:15-cv-01223-AGF (E.D. Mo. Oct. 20, 2015)