David Randall Poyner v. Kenneth Peters

Summary

The court denies David Randall Poyner’s motion for appointment of counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action. The court concludes that Poyner articulated his claim, the applicable legal doctrines were not complex, and the interests of justice did not require appointed counsel at that stage.

Holdings

1. Appointment of counsel is discretionary in a federal habeas proceeding, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that the interests of justice required appointment of counsel at that stage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should appoint counsel for the petitioner in this § 2254 proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).

Disposition

other