Vincent v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMON P. VINCENT ,
Petitioner
V.
WARDEN , USP-CANAAN ,
Respondent
I. 	Background
Civil No. 3:25-cv-2555
(Judge Mariani)
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Ramon Vincent ("Petitioner "), an inmate currently confined at the United
States Penitentiary , Canaan , in Waymart , Pennsylvania, filed a prose petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . (Doc. 1). 	Presently before the Court is
Pet itioner's motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 10). For the reasons set forth below ,
the Court will deny the motion without prejudice.
II. 	Discussion
There is no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of counsel in federal
habeas proceedings. 	See Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 , 725 (1991) ; Pennsylvania
v. Finley, 481 U.S . 551, 555 (1987) . Appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is
mandatory only if the district court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required , or if
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 4

counsel is necessary for "effective" discovery. 1 See Rule 8(c) and Rule 6(a) of the Rules
Governing§ 2254 Cases2; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). 	Otherwise, a court may appoint
counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if it "determines that the interests of justice so
require," and that the petitioner is financially unable to obtain adequate representation. 	See
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)3. 	See also Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir .
2002); Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993), aff'd, 275 F.3d 33 (3d Cir. 2001) ;
Reese v. Fu/comer , 946 F.2d 247, 263-64 (3d Cir. 1991 ). The United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that appointment of counsel for an indigent litigant
should be made when circumstances indicate "the likelihood of substantial prejudice to him
resulting, for example , from his probable inability without such assistance to present the
facts and legal issues to the court in a complex but arguably meritorious case. " Smith-Bey
v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984) .
The initial determination to be made by the Court in evaluating the expenditure of the
"precious commodity" of volunteer counsel is whether the case has some arguable merit in
1 	In this regard , if the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary , or that counsel
is necessary for effective discovery, counsel will be appointed in accordance with Rule 8(c) and/or Rule
6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. See also United States v. lasiello , 166 F.3d 212 , 213 n.3 (3d
Cir . 1999).
2 	Rules 8(c) and 6(a) are applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pursuant to Rule 1(b ) of
the habeas rules. See Rules Governing§ 2254 Cases Rule 1(b) .
3 	Any person seeking relief under 28 U.S .C. §§ 2241 , 2254 or 2255 may be provided counse l,
"[w]henever the United States magistrate judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so
requ ire " and such person is "financially eligible ." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) .
2
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 4

fact or law . Montgomery, 294 F.3d at 499. 	If a petitioner overcomes this threshold hurdle ,
other factors to be examined are :
(1) 	the claimant's ability to present his or her own case;
(2) 	the difficulty of the particular legal issues;
(3) 	the degree to which factual investigation will be necessary and the
ability of the claimant to pursue investigation;
(4) 	the claimant's capacity to retain counsel on his or her own behalf ;
(5) 	the extent to which the case is likely to turn on credibility
determinations ; and ,
(6) 	whether the case will require testimony from expert witnesses .
Id. (citing Tabron , 6 F.3d at 155-57). This list of factors is not exhaustive. 	Tabron, 6 F.3d at
157 . The Third Circuit Court of Appeals added two other factors to be taken into
consideration : (1) the court's wil lingness to aid the indigent party in presenting his or her
own case ; and (2) the available supply of lawyers willing to accept section 1915(e) requests
within the relevant geographic area. 	See Gordon v. Gonzalez, 232 F. App 'x 153 (3d Cir.
2007).
Assuming arguendo that the petition has merit, Petitioner fails to set forth any special
circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. 	See Tabron , 6 F.3d at 155-56.
Other than a blanket request for counsel , Petitioner does not set forth any arguments in
support of his request for counsel. 	(Doc . 10) . Moreover, in his petition, Petitioner
demonstrates the ability to present comprehensible arguments, and he is intimately familiar
with the facts of his case . (Doc. 1). Furthermore, despite his incarceration , investigation of
the facts does not seem beyond Petitioner 's capabilities. 	The Court also notes that it does
not have a large group of attorneys who would represent this action in a pro bona capacity.
3
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 4

In addition, the Court cannot say, at least at this point , that Petitioner will suffer
substantial prejudice if he is forced to prosecute this case on his own. The Court's duty to
construe prose pleadings libera lly, Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Riley v. Jeffes ,
777 F.2d 143, 147-48 (3d Cir. 1985), coupled with Petitioner's apparent ability to litigate this
action , militate against the appointment of counsel. 	Therefore, the motion for appointment
of counsel will be denied, however the denial will be without prejudice. As the Court in
Tabron stated:
[A]ppointment of counsel under§ 1915(d) may be made at any point in the
litigation and may be made by the district court sua sponte .. . even if it does
not appear until trial (or immediate ly before trial) that an indigent litigant is not
capable of trying his or her case , the district court should consider
appointment of counsel at that point.
Tabron , 6 F.3d at 156-57. Therefore, in the event that future proceedings demonstrate the
need for counsel , the matter may be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of
Petitioner.
A separate Order shall issue.
Dated: February ~ 	2026
United States District Judge
4
Case 3:25-cv-02555-RDM-CA Document 13 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 4