UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Rashad R. Ivy, Case No. 25-CV-208 (PAM/JFD) Petitioner, v. ORDER William Bolin, Respondent.

Rashad R. Ivy commenced this action seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is now before the Court on Mr. Ivy’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas action. Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). However, a “court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the interests of justice so require.” Id. (cleaned up); see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel, a “court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.

In his habeas petition, Mr. Ivy claims that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest and was ineffective; that Minnesota Statute § 609.322, subdivision 1, is unconstitutional; and that his appellate counsel was ineffective. These issues are not legally or factually complex, and Mr. Ivy has demonstrated an adequate ability to present his claims. In addition, there is no need for further investigation, and the issues can be decided on the existing record. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Ivy’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Rashad R. Ivy’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED.

Dated: September 15, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty JOHN F. DOCHERTY United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Rashad R. Ivy, Case No. 25-CV-208 (PAM/JFD) Petitioner, v. ORDER William Bolin, Respondent.

Rashad R. Ivy commenced this action seeking federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is now before the Court on Mr. Ivy’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 8). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas action. Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). However, a “court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when the interests of justice so require.” Id. (cleaned up); see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel, a “court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.” Hoggard, 29 F.3d at 471.

In his habeas petition, Mr. Ivy claims that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest and was ineffective; that Minnesota Statute § 609.322, subdivision 1, is unconstitutional; and that his appellate counsel was ineffective. These issues are not legally or factually complex, and Mr. Ivy has demonstrated an adequate ability to present his claims. In addition, there is no need for further investigation, and the issues can be decided on the existing record. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Ivy’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Rashad R. Ivy’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED.

Dated: September 15, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty JOHN F. DOCHERTY United States Magistrate Judge