The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
TERRON BROWN,
Petitioner, 8:20CV343
vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.
This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner Terron
Brown’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on August 24, 2020. However, this matter will not proceed further
until Petitioner cures the deficiencies discussed below.
First, Petitioner has not signed the petition under penalty of perjury. See, e.g.
28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
the United States District Courts.
Second, a habeas corpus petition must “substantially follow either the form
appended to [the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts], or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” See Rule 2 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Here,
Petitioner did not use the Form AO 241, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody. Rather, he submitted a two-page, typed document that
does not clearly indicate the judgment challenged.
Third, Petitioner failed to name a proper respondent in the Petition. Rule
2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts states that “if the petitioner is currently in custody under a state-court
judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.”
In habeas corpus challenges to present physical confinement, the default rule is that
the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2005). Here, Petitioner has named the
State of Nebraska as Respondent in this matter, which is not the proper respondent.
Based on these deficiencies, Petitioner’s petition is deemed insufficient and
the court will not act upon it. However, on the court’s own motion, Petitioner will
have 30 days in which to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner has also filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel.
(Filing 6.) “[T]here is neither a constitutional nor statutory right to counsel in
habeas proceedings; instead, [appointment] is committed to the discretion of the
trial court.” McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 1997). As a general
rule, counsel will not be appointed unless the case is unusually complex or the
petitioner’s ability to investigate and articulate the claims is unusually impaired or
an evidentiary hearing is required. See, e.g., Morris v. Dormire, 217 F.3d 556, 558-
59 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 984 (2000); Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d
469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). See also Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts (requiring appointment of counsel if an
evidentiary hearing is warranted). The court has carefully reviewed the record and
finds there is no need for the appointment of counsel at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The pending Petition (filing 1) is deemed insufficient and the court
will not act upon it.
2. By October 28, 2020, Petitioner shall file an amended petition for
writ of habeas corpus that is originally signed under penalty of perjury and in
which he names a proper respondent. Petitioner is encouraged to use the enclosed
official Form AO 241. To avoid confusion, any document Petitioner sends to the
clerk of the court for filing in this case must clearly display the case number.
Failure to file an amended petition in accordance with this Memorandum and
Order will result in dismissal of this matter without further notice.
3. The clerk of the court is directed to send to Petitioner the Form AO
241 (“Petition for Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State
Custody’).
4. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this matter with the following text: October 28, 2020: Check for
amended petition.
5. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing 6) is denied
without prejudice to reassertion.
Dated this 28th day of September, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
Kuchar F- Ac YH
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge