From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 19, 2016
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-11963 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2016)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:15-CV-11963

10-19-2016

WILLIE ROSE, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Michigan prisoner Willie Rose ("Petitioner") has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. In support of his motion, Petitioner states that he is unable to afford counsel, that his ability to litigate is hampered by his imprisonment, that his case involves complex and conflicting issues, and that he has limited legal knowledge and access to legal materials.

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)).

In this case, Petitioner has submitted his habeas petition, Respondent has filed an answer to the petition and the state court record, and Petitioner has filed a reply to that answer. The Court's initial review of those materials indicates that the appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon a more detailed review of the pleadings, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional motion concerning this issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's motion.

IT IS ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara

United States District Judge Date: October 19, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, October 19, 2016, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager


Summaries of

Rose v. Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 19, 2016
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-11963 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2016)
Case details for

Rose v. Bauman

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE ROSE, Petitioner, v. CATHERINE BAUMAN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 19, 2016

Citations

CASE NO. 5:15-CV-11963 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2016)