Opinion
21-cv-12878
07-22-2024
RENALDO RAMON PRESSWOOD, Petitioner, v. RANDEE REWERTS, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has submitted an original and an amended habeas petition, ECF Nos. 1, 11. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition (as amended) and the state court record. ECF Nos. 14, 15. Petitioner has filed a reply and a supplemental reply to that answer. ECF Nos. 17, 18. The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 20.
A petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.'” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)).
Having conducted a preliminary review of the case, the Court finds that the parties have submitted all of the required pleadings and concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary for the proper resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon a more detailed review of the record, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional motion concerning this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.