Opinion
21-cv-1515 (KMM/TNL)
03-02-2022
Earl Lionell Ward, Petitioner, v. Tracy Beltz, Respondent.
Earl Lionell Ward, MSOP, pro se. Edwin William Stockmeyer, III, and Matthew Frank, Office of Minnesota Attorney General, and Jeffrey Wald, for Respondent.
Earl Lionell Ward, MSOP, pro se.
Edwin William Stockmeyer, III, and Matthew Frank, Office of Minnesota Attorney General, and Jeffrey Wald, for Respondent.
ORDER
Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge District of Minnesota
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Earl Lionell Ward's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [ECF No. 3.] District courts may appoint counsel for habeas petitioners “‘when the interests of justice so require.'” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Abdullah v. Norris, 18 F.3d 571, 573 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) (statutory provision permitting appointment). When deciding whether to appoint counsel in a case like this, the court should consider “the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471 (citing cases); accord Wiseman v. Wachendorf, 984 F.3d 649, 655 (8th Cir. 2021). At this stage of this litigation, the Court does not believe that litigating this action will be factually or legally complex. Nor does it appear to the Court that Ward is unable to investigate this action's facts or present his arguments to the Court. At this point, then, the Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. The Court therefore denies the motion.
Under Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts, if the Court determines, as this case proceeds, that an evidentiary hearing is necessary, then the Court will appoint Ward an attorney under § 3006A.
SO ORDERED.