NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

WILLIAM NEELD, : Civil Action No. 11-1731 (JBS)

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. : O P I N I O N

:

STATE OF NJ, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

 :

APPEARANCES:

William Neeld, Pro Se

#308443-488377A

Northern State Prison

168 Frontage Road

Newark, NJ 07114

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge

Petitioner, William Neeld, filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a motion to

appoint counsel (docket entry 7), which remain pending before

this Court. Under separate Order, this Court has ordered the

Respondents to answer the petition. At this time, the motion for

counsel must be denied, without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed this habeas petition, pro se, arguing that

his constitutional rights were violated during the course of his

state court trial. See Petition, Docket entry 1. Petitioner

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 16 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 77
seeks the appointment of counsel due to the complexity of the

issues, because he is unable to afford counsel, and because he

lacks legal skills and the ability to investigate. (Motion,

docket entry 7).

DISCUSSION

There is no Sixth Amendment right to appointment of counsel

in habeas proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,

555 (1987)(“our cases establish that the right to appointed

counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further”);

Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 456-57 (3d Cir. 1997)(holding

that there is no statutory or constitutional right of counsel

conferred upon indigent civil litigants); Reese v. Fulcomer, 946

F.2d 247, 263 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 988

(1992)(“there is no ‘automatic’ constitutional right to counsel

in federal habeas corpus proceedings), superseded on other

grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Title 18 of the United States Code, section 3006A(a)(2)(B)

states that counsel may be appointed to an indigent habeas

petitioner where the “interests of justice so require.” In 1

determining whether the interests of justice require appointment

of counsel, the Court must examine whether or not the petitioner

has presented a meritorious claim. See Biggins v. Snyder, 2001

Likewise, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that a court 1

may “request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford

counsel.”

2

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 16 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 78
WL 125337 at * 3 (D. Del. February 8, 2001)(unpubl.)(citing Reese

v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d at 263-64)(other citations omitted). Next,

the Court must determine whether the appointment of counsel will

benefit the petitioner and the Court by examining the legal

complexity of the case and the petitioner’s ability to present

his claims and investigate facts. See id. (citing Reese, 946

F.2d at 264; Parham v. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457-58 (3d Cir.

1997); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-56 (3d Cir. 1993))(other

citations omitted). “Where these issues are ‘straightforward and

capable of resolution on the record,’ or when the petitioner has

‘a good understanding of the issues and the ability to present

forcefully and coherently his contentions,’ the court would not

abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel.” Id.

(citations and quotations omitted); see also Paul v. Attorney

General of New Jersey, 1992 WL 184358 at * 1 (D.N.J. July 10,

1992)(unpubl.)(stating that the factors the court should consider

in appointing counsel under § 3006A include: “(i) the likelihood

of success on the merits; (ii) the complexity of the legal issues

raised by the complaint; and (iii) the ability of the prisoner to

investigate and present the case.”).

In the instant case, the Court must first determine if

Petitioner states non-frivolous, meritorious claims. In his

petition, Petitioner argues that he had inadequate counsel at his

trial, and that prosecutorial misconduct and trial errors

3

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 16 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 79
occurred during the proceedings. From the face of the petition,

these contentions do not appear to be frivolous, and may or may

not have merit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325

(1989)(in actions filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a

“frivolous” complaint is defined as one which has “inarguable

legal conclusions” or “fanciful factual allegations”).

Next, the Court must examine whether the appointment of

counsel will benefit the Court and Petitioner. The instant case

seems to be fairly “straightforward and capable of resolution on

the record.” See Parham, 126 F.3d at 460 (citing Ferguson v.

Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990)). Petitioner has shown

his capability to proceed pro se by filing the petition and

instant motion with attachments, and letters to the Court. As a

prisoner, Petitioner does have access to the prison law library

and a limited ability to investigate the law. See Jones v.

Kearney, 2000 WL 1876433 at *2 (D. Del. December 15,

2000)(unpubl.). Additionally, Petitioner’s claims are not

complex and are capable of resolution on the record. This

Court’s review of the petition is limited to reviewing whether

the state court adjudications:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United

States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on

an unreasonable determination of the facts in

4

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 16 Filed 02/22/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 80
light of the evidence presented in the State

court proceeding.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). With regard to Petitioner’s claims, the

record to be provided by Respondents should provide the Court

with the information needed to resolve this case. It does not

appear that expert testimony will be required.

At this early point in the proceedings, the Court will deny

Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, as it does not appear

that the appointment of counsel would benefit both Petitioner and

the Court. However, the denial will be without prejudice to

Petitioner refiling his motion in the future if necessary to the

case.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for counsel will

be denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Chief Judge

United States District Court 

Dated: February 22, 2012

5

Case 1:11-cv-01731-JBS Document 16 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 81