Hale v. Burt

Full title: JAMES HALE, #182038, Petitioner, v. SHERRY BURT, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2006

Case No. 05-71301 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 05-71301.

February 1, 2006

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AVERN COHN, District Judge

Before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on habeas corpus review. Furthermore, neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery have been requested or are necessary at this time. The interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will reconsider the motion if, following the receipt and review of the responsive pleading and Rule 5 materials, it is determined that appointment of counsel is necessary.

SO ORDERED.