Hollingsworth v. Sheets

Full title: WENDELL K. HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL SHEETS, Warden, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jun 22, 2010

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-046 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 22, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-046.

June 22, 2010

ORDER

ALGENON MARBLEY, District Judge

On February 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this habeas corpus action be dismissed. On February 8, 2010, petitioner filed an objection. The Court construed the objection as a motion for an extension of time to file objections. The motion was granted, and petitioner was given until May 14, 2010, to file his objections.

Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. He did, however, file a motion for appointment of counsel, arguing that due to his lack of understanding and the complexity of this case, counsel should be appointed for him.

"[T]he Constitution does not require the assistance of counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. Douglas v. Maxwell, 357 F.2d 320, 321 (6th Cir. 1966)." Gross v. Jackson, 2008 WL 4702181, *1 (S.D. Ohio October 22, 2008). In Gross, this Court further noted that unless an evidentiary hearing will be held, appointment of counsel is not required by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), and that the lack of complexity of the case is a factor weighing against the discretionary appointment of counsel. See also Schultz v. Wainwright, 701 F.2d 900, 901 (11^th Cir. 1983).

Here, the Report and Recommendation addresses a single issue — whether the petition was timely filed. This issue is not so complex that counsel is needed to assist petitioner in addressing it. The Report and Recommendation also noted that petitioner had offered no reason for the late filing of the petition. Despite being given a lengthy extension of time to address this issue, petitioner has not done so. The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel in this situation.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (#8) is DENIED. Further, the Report and Recommendation (#4) is ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts as having been filed outside of the time permitted by the applicable statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.