Opinion
Case No. 06-10732-BC.
March 2, 2006
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
This matter is before the Court on the petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel filed on February 17, 2006. In his motion, the petitioner states that he lacks funds to hire his own counsel and that he therefore should have counsel appointed for him.
The petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). "`[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)); see also Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) ("In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider the legal complexity of the case, the factual complexity of the case, and the petitioner's ability to investigate and present his claims, along with any other relevant factors.").
In this case, the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c). If, however, the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing or discovery are necessary, the Court may revisit the petitioner's motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel [dkt # 3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.