United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 18, 2015
ROBERT MOORE Petitioner,
SUPT. JEROME WALSH et al., Defendants.
GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, District Judge.
This 18th day of May, 2015, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel, Petitioner's Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Courts are empowered to appoint counsel for financially eligible habeas corpus petitioners when "the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Whether appointing counsel is appropriate in any given case will depend on a variety of factors including "the complexity of the factual and legal issues in the case, as well as the pro se petitioner's ability to investigate facts and present claims." Reese v. Fulcomer, 948 F.2d 247, 264 (3d Cir. 1991), superseded on other grounds as stated in Berryman v. Morton, 100 F.3d 1089, 1094 (3d Cir. 1996). Here, I find that the issues in this case are not sufficiently complex as to require appointment of counsel for Petitioner. Moreover, appointment of counsel would be inappropriate because Petitioner's claims are barred because of procedural default.
2. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart, dated November 13, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Hart in the Report and Recommendation.
3. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Robert Moore, is DENIED; and
4. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the propriety of this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).