Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 45 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Keith A. Mira v. Ronald C. Marshall.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Keith A. Mira v. Ronald C. Marshall Anchor | green | “the decision to appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner is within the discretion of the court and is required only where the interests of justice or due process so require.” | 19 |
| 2 | Lemeshko v. Wrona | green | “the exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment of counsel to represent a prisoner acting pro se in a habeas action occur where a petitioner has made a colorable claim, but lacks the means to adequately investigate, prepare, or present the claim.” | 11 |
| 3 | Lemeshko v. Wrona | green | “appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is mandatory only if the district court determines that an evidentiary hearing is required.” | 9 |
| 4 | Lemeshko v. Wrona | green | “counsel may be appointed, in exceptional cases, for a prisoner appearing pro se in a habeas action.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.