From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Fortner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 30, 2012
No. 1:93-0073 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 30, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1:93-0073

07-30-2012

JOE CLARK MITCHELL Petitioner v. JAMES FORTNER, Warden Respondent


Judge Haynes


MOTION FOR CONFIRMATION/RE-APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

In habeas proceedings in this Court, this Court has previously appointed the Office of the Federal Public Defender to represent the Petitioner, and undersigned counsel has worked on Petitioner's case since filing a 2005 Motion For Relief From Judgment on Petitioner's behalf. While proceedings on that motion ultimately terminated in 2011, Petitioner has this day filed another Motion For Relief From Judgment in light of all the equities and especially the Supreme Court's recent decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. __ (2012), which entitles Mitchell to reopen the habeas proceedings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). As the Court can see, the issues presented in the motion are novel and complex, and Petitioner requires counsel to assist him before this Court. This Court should therefore confirm that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §30o6A, the Office of the Federal Public Defender (and undersigned counsel) shall continue to represent Petitioner in these proceedings, and/or the Court should re-appoint counsel to do so.


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Fortner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Jul 30, 2012
No. 1:93-0073 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Fortner

Case Details

Full title:JOE CLARK MITCHELL Petitioner v. JAMES FORTNER, Warden Respondent

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jul 30, 2012

Citations

No. 1:93-0073 (M.D. Tenn. Jul. 30, 2012)