Opinion
Case No. 05-CV-70134-DT.
November 15, 2005
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND ORAL ARGUMENTS
Petitioner initiated this action on January 13, 2005, by filing a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition challenges the Michigan Parole Board's decision to revoke Petitioner's parole because he associated with a known felon. This matter currently is pending before the Court on Petitioner's motions for appointment of counsel and oral arguments.
Petitioner alleges that he cannot retain counsel and that he is unable to investigate or prove disputed facts. He contends that oral argument would be helpful in deciding the federal constitutional issues presented in his habeas petition. Respondent, however, has urged the Court to deny the habeas petition on the ground that the parole revocation proceedings did not violate Petitioner's right to due process.
Petitioner has no absolute right to appointment of counsel on habeas review. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1987)), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003). Furthermore, a preliminary review of the pleadings has persuaded the Court that oral arguments are not necessary and that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. #11, Aug. 8, 2005] and his motion for oral arguments [Doc. #12, Aug. 8, 2005].