Chase v. Sullivan et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
NATHAN CHASE,
Petitioner,
vs.
DANIEL SULLIVAN, WARDEN OF THE
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH
DAKOTA
Respondents.
5:22-CV-05090-KES
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL (DOC. 2) AND
DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT
PUBLIC DEFENDER (DOC. 5)
Petitioner, Nathan Chase an inmate of the South Dakota Department of
Corrections, who is currently housed at the New Jersey State Prison in
Trenton, New Jersey, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	Mr. Chase requests appointment of counsel. 	(Doc. 2, 5).
The matter was referred to this magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and United States District Court District of South
Dakota’s local rules, L.R. 57.11(B).
DISCUSSION
This habeas corpus matter is pending pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
“There is no recognized constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment for the
appointment of counsel in habeas corpus cases.” 	Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d
469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). 	Because a habeas action is civil in nature, the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel applicable in criminal cases does not apply. 	Id.
Case 5:22-cv-05090-KES Document 6 Filed 11/29/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
The statutory basis for the appointment of counsel in a habeas case is
found at 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) and Rules 6(a) and 8(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases. 	18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a) provides:
(2) 	Whenever 	the 	United 	States 	magistrate 	judge 	or 	the 	court
determines that the interests of justice so require, representation
may be provided for any financially eligible person who—
. . .
(B) is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title
28.
Rules 6(a) and 8(c) provide:
If 	necessary 	for 	effective 	discovery, 	the 	judge 	must 	appoint 	an
attorney for a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed
under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.
If an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an
attorney to represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel
appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A . . . These rules do not limit the
appointment 	of 	counsel 	under 	§ 3006A 	at 	any 	stage 	of 	the
proceeding.
The appointment of counsel in a habeas case is discretionary when no
evidentiary hearing is necessary. 	Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471 (citations omitted).
“In exercising its discretion, the district 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.” 	Id. 	Most importantly, “where the issues involved can be properly
resolved on the basis of the state court record, a district court does not abuse
its discretion in denying a request for court-appointed counsel.” 	Id.
In this case, it is unknown whether an evidentiary hearing will be held
because the parties have yet to show whether the petition should be dismissed
for untimeliness. 	At this point, there are no facts or law appearing that would
Case 5:22-cv-05090-KES Document 6 Filed 11/29/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
support the court’s discretionary appointment of counsel to represent
Mr. Chase. 	Should this change as the case develops, Mr. Chase may file a
motion to appoint counsel.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Chase’s motions to appoint counsel (Doc. 2, 5) are
denied without prejudice.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A), any party may seek reconsideration
of this order before the district court upon a showing that the order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 	The parties have fourteen (14) days after service
of this order to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A),
unless an extension of time for good cause is obtained. 	See FED. R. CIV. P.
72(a); 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A). 	Failure to file timely objections will result in
the waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	Id. 	Objections must be
timely and specific in order to require review by the district court. 	Thompson
v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990); Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665 (8th Cir.
1986).
DATED this 29th day of November, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
DANETA WOLLMANN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:22-cv-05090-KES Document 6 Filed 11/29/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>