Lacy v. DOC State of MN, Minneasota

Background

Harold Lacy filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The order does not decide whether he is entitled to that relief or whether his claims are legally cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Court’s Orders

The court directed the respondents to file an answer showing cause why the court should not grant the writ. The answer must comply with Rules 5(b), (c), and (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and must include a reasoned memorandum fully stating the respondents’ legal and factual position on Lacy’s claims.

The answer must also address whether Lacy’s claims, in whole or in part, can be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or instead must be raised through another statutory procedure. The respondents must file and serve the answer within 21 days of the order’s date. Lacy’s appointed counsel must file a reply within 21 days after the respondents file their answer. The court prohibited further submissions unless it expressly authorizes them.

Appointment of Counsel

The court found that appointing counsel was warranted. It noted that there is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in habeas proceedings, but that a district court may appoint counsel when appropriate. The court considered the jurisdictional and statutory issues concerning whether Lacy’s claims are cognizable under Section 2254 and concluded that appointing counsel was appropriate. It appointed the Office of the Federal Public Defender to select counsel to represent Lacy in responding to the respondents’ answer.

Filing Fees and Disposition

The court granted Lacy’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he may proceed without paying the required filing fees. The order is a procedural step in the habeas case: it requires the respondents to answer, appoints counsel, and grants the fee application, but does not grant or deny the habeas petition.