Thompson v. Booker

Full title: DERICO THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND BOOKER, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 15, 2005

Case No. 05-CV-71882-DT (E.D. Mich. Nov. 15, 2005)

Opinion

Case No. 05-CV-71882-DT.

November 15, 2005

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ARTHUR TARNOW, District Judge

Before the Court is Petitioner's letter request seeking appointment of counsel in this habeas action. In support of his request, Petitioner alleges that he is unskilled in the law and needs assistance in replying to Respondent's answer to the habeas petition.

Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6^th 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 (6^th Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9^th Cir. 1965)). Petitioner has submitted his habeas petition in support of his claims. Neither an evidentiary hearing nor discovery are necessary at this time, and the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8©. Petitioner has 45 days in which to reply to Respondent's answer, but may request additional time if necessary to submit a reply.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner's request for appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider Petitioner's request if, following review of the pleadings and state court record, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional motion concerning this issue.