Fulton v. Superintendent

Background

Jeremy Fulton filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and represented himself. He first asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer without charge, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The court denied that request without prejudice in a June 16, 2020 order. Fulton later filed a renewed application for appointed counsel.

Fulton said he wanted counsel for possible future hearings or evidentiary matters, strategic assistance in answering the Attorney General’s opposition, and investigation of alleged problems with his case. He stated that his family had contacted several attorneys and that his case lacked an investigation, witness testimony, and documents. The opinion states that he listed seven attorneys who had been contacted.

Legal standard

The court explained that filings by people representing themselves must be read liberally. It also cited the rule governing petitions under § 2254, which provides for appointment of counsel when an evidentiary hearing is needed. Courts may deny a request when the petition has been fully briefed, no evidentiary hearing is pending, and the circumstances do not indicate that counsel would produce a fairer decision.

Court’s analysis

Fulton’s petition had been fully briefed since January 14, 2021. The court had the record and transcript from the underlying criminal proceeding, and no hearing was scheduled. Fulton had already replied twice to the government’s opposition. The court also stated that it would read his submissions liberally because he was representing himself.

The court concluded that Fulton had not identified a purpose for appointing counsel at that time or shown circumstances suggesting that counsel would likely lead to a more just determination. The court therefore denied the renewed application without prejudice to renewal. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the application and mail Fulton a copy of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Fulton’s underlying petition.