Opinion
No. 00-CV-10115-BC
January 16, 2001
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court is petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner alleges that he is unable to retain counsel and the habeas issues are complex. He contends that he would be at a disadvantage to litigate the issues without the assistance of counsel.
Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on habeas corpus review. Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 1995); see Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)); Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep't of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). "[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is. . . a matter within the discretion of the district court. It is a privilege and not a right." United States ex rel. Gardner v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965) (quoted in Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(h) (stating that a "court may appoint counsel for an applicant who is or becomes financially unable to afford counsel) (emphasis added).
Neither discovery nor an evidentiary hearing are necessary at this time, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c), and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Moreover, respondent argues in an answer to the habeas petition that petitioner's claims are barred by procedural default, are noncognizable, or are without merit.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel.