From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koffman v. Bell

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Feb 1, 2011
No. 3:10-1065 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. 3:10-1065.

February 1, 2011


ORDER


On January 27, 2011, the Court received a letter (Docket Entry No. 24) from the petitioner. In the letter, the petitioner asks for "everything the State people have", making reference to the record of his trial and post-conviction proceedings. He also attached a Motion to the letter asking the Court to reconsider his Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket Entry No. 3).

The respondent has not yet filed an Answer with relevant portions of the state record. However, when the respondent's Answer is filed with the Court, the petitioner shall have an opportunity to request those portions of the record that he needs to enter a reply to the Answer. See 28 U.S.C. § 2250.

The petitioner's ignorance of the law, in and of itself, does not constitute circumstances exceptional enough to warrant an appointment of counsel. However, once an Answer is filed, the need for counsel may become more apparent. As a consequence, petitioner's Motion to reconsider is DENIED at this time. He is free, of course, to renew the Motion after the respondent's Answer has been received.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Koffman v. Bell

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Feb 1, 2011
No. 3:10-1065 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Koffman v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:LARRY P. KOFFMAN Petitioner, v. RICKY BELL, WARDEN Respondent

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Feb 1, 2011

Citations

No. 3:10-1065 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 1, 2011)