Source: http://nh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130430_0000367.DNH.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-05-31 20:57:07
Document Index: 482114644

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 3006', '§ 2254', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

* two motions seeking appointment of counsel (doc. nos. 3 and 16);
* a motion to extend time to file documents demonstrating exhaustion of state court remedies and requesting subpoenas (doc. no. 35);
* a motion to amend (doc. no. 29) the § 2254 petition;
* a motion requesting subpoenas (doc. no. 36); a motion for "immediate release" (doc. no. 39);
* a motion to expand the record (doc. no. 45); and
* a motion to add exhibits and suspend sentence (doc. no. 46).
I. Appointment of Counsel (doc. nos. 3 and 16)
Schillinger seeks the appointment of counsel in each of two motions (doc. nos. 3 and 16). The motions are essentially duplicative. This court has authority, under the Criminal Justice Act ("CJA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, to provide representation for any financially eligible person seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, if the court determines that the interests of justice require representation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B).
Schillinger is eligible for an appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). The court has further reviewed the petition and Schillinger's numerous filings. Schillinger has demonstrated difficulty marshaling the exhibits he needs to litigate his § 2254 petition pro se, and to express his claims succinctly. The interests of justice require an appointment of counsel for Schillinger. Therefore, both motions to appoint counsel (doc. nos. 3 and 16) are granted, and the clerk is directed to find counsel willing and able to represent Schillinger, consistent with this court's CJA plan.
Appointed counsel is specifically directed to review the record in this case and in Schillinger's state court proceedings, and to file within 120 days:
(1) an amended federal habeas petition, including as exhibits thereto, documents derived from the NHSC record demonstrating that Schillinger has exhausted his state court remedies on each claim asserted in his amended petition, as required by this order, by previous orders of this court (doc. nos. 26 and 28), see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);
(2) a motion to drop any unexhausted claims, acknowledging that Schillinger will likely lose the ability to raise any foregone claims in a successive habeas ...