Opinion
Civil No. 11-cv-10995
02-07-2013
ANTONIO MIGUEL FREEMAN, Petitioner, v. TONY TRIERWEILER, Respondent.
Honorable Denise Page Hood
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Dkt. 11]
On October 17, 2011, Petitioner Antonio Freeman, a state inmate, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court is his motion for appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice.
The constitutional right to counsel in criminal proceedings provided by the Sixth Amendment does not apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus, which is a civil proceeding. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003), reh. denied, 539 U.S. 970 (2003). The Court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). 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 this case, after the Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and state court record, if the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary, then it will do so at that time. Petitioner need not file any further motions regarding this issue.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
________
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on February 7, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager