Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-426
2013-10-22
ROBERT HILL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION CENTER, Respondent.
Spiegel, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
ORDER
This pro se habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on respondent's motion for "substitution of parties," as well as petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel. (Docs. 5, 13, 17). Respondent opposes petitioner's request for counsel. (Doc. 18).
Respondent's motion for party substitution (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Both petitioner and respondent have informed the Court that petitioner was transferred from the Correctional Reception Center (CRC) to the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI) in Lebanon, Ohio, where he is currently incarcerated. (See Docs. 2, 13). Because it thus appears that LeCI's Warden now has custody of petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that the caption of this case be changed to reflect that LeCI's Warden has replaced the Warden of CRC as the proper party respondent in this action. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254.
Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 5, 17) are DENIED. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Court may permit the appointment of counsel for any financially eligible person seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if "the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). The decision to appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner is within the discretion of the court. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). Factors influencing a court's decision include the complexity of the factual and legal issues in the case, as well as the petitioner's ability to investigate facts and present claims. Reese v. Fulcomer, 946 F.2d 247, 264 (3d Cir. 1991). Circuit courts have found no abuse of a district court's discretion in failing to appoint counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding where no evidentiary hearing was required or the issues were straightforward and capable of resolution on the record. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1990); Ferguson v. Jones, 905 F.2d 211, 214 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Reese, 946 F.2d at 264. In this case, it appears at this juncture that the issues to be decided are straightforward and capable of resolution on the record. Therefore, the undersigned concludes that counsel is not warranted to ensure that the interests of justice are served in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge