Davis v. Jackson

Full title: LEON DAVIS, Petitioner, v. ANDREW JACKSON, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Jul 21, 2006

Case Number: 05-CV-72236 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Case Number: 05-CV-72236.

July 21, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S "MOTIONS TO REQUEST APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL" AND DENYING PETITIONER'S "MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME"

ROBERT CLELAND, District Judge

Petitioner Leon Davis, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Now before the Court are Petitioner's "Motions to Request Appointment of Counsel" and "Motions for Extension of Time."

Petitioner filed two "Motions to Request Appointment of Counsel," within a two-week time span. Petitioner does not explain why he filed two motions. There exists no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases, and the court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 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.") (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). In the instant case, the court determines after careful consideration that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. The court, therefore, will deny the motions.

Petitioner also has filed two motions seeking an extension of time within which to file a reply to Respondent's answer in opposition to the habeas petition. Again, Petitioner filed the motions within two weeks of one another and did not explain why he filed two motions. Since filing his "Motions for Extension of Time," Petitioner has filed a pleading entitled "Petitioner, Brief" [Dkt. # 27]. Petitioner apparently intended that pleading to serve as his reply to Respondent's answer in opposition. The brief as such was accepted for filing and docketed by the court and Petitioner need take no further action. Petitioner's motions for an extension of time will therefore be denied as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motions to Request Appointment of Counsel" [Dkt. # 24 # 26] are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motions for Extension of Time" [Dkt. # 23 # 25] are DENIED.