Opinion
Case Number: 1:09-cv-11665
12-16-2013
ARTHUR BRIDGES, Petitioner, v. BLAINE LAFLER, Respondent.
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Habeas petitioner Arthur Bridges challenges his convictions for one count of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.741(2)(a)(iv), and one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.157a. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Bridges has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Bridges has not suggested any particular reason for seeking counsel, and he has no absolute right to be represented on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). "[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right." Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case "[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel here.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Bridges's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 27, is DENIED.
_____________
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail, and upon Arthur Bridges # 154318, 10274 Boyer Rd, Carson City, MI 48811 by first class U.S. mail on December 16, 2013.
_____________
TRACY A. JACOBS