Opinion
20-12724
02-15-2022
EDDIE LEE SKELLETT, Petitioner, v. RANEE REWERTS, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 9)
LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Michigan prisoner Eddie Lee Skellett has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 9). In support of his motion, Petitioner states he needs the assistance of counsel because his case is complex, and the global pandemic has limited his access to the law library. (ECF No. 9 at Pg ID 3672.)
A petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). In a civil case, appointment of counsel 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)). The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court denies the motion without prejudice. If the Court finds appointment of counsel necessary at a future point in the proceedings, the Court will sua sponte reconsider Petitioner's request for counsel.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.