White v. Lafler

Full title: ROBERT ANTHONY WHITE, Petitioner, v. BLAINE LAFLER, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 21, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-CV-73595-DT (E.D. Mich. Dec. 21, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-CV-73595-DT.

December 21, 2005

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND BUT DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

LAWRENCE ZATKOFF, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for leave to amend his habeas corpus petition and his motion for appointment of counsel. Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the habeas petition, nor any response to the motions.

I. Motion to Amend

Petitioner seeks to amend his habeas petition to include additional information regarding trial counsel's ineffectiveness in advising him to plead guilty and failing to request a competency hearing. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his or her pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).¹ Since a responsive pleading has not yet been filed in this case, Petitioner has the right to amend the petition without seeking permission from the Court. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. The amended pleadings submitted with Petitioner's motion, shall be deemed filed and considered as part of the petition.

1 Rule 15(a) applies to habeas corpus actions as it applies to other civil cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (habeas petitions "may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions").

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel to assist him in this habeas action. 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 (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 pleadings 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(c). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon receipt of the State's answer and further review of the pleadings, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary. Petitioner need not file an additional motion concerning this issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.