Opinion
Case No. 05-CV-40131-FL.
January 23, 2006
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court is Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel in this habeas action. In support of his request, Petitioner alleges that he is unable to afford counsel, that he is unskilled in the law, that there are substantial disputes in the case, and that the interests of justice would be served by appointment of counsel.
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 (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)). Petitioner has submitted his habeas petition in support of his claims. Respondent has recently filed an answer to the petition. 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(c).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider Petitioner's request if, following further 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.