Frame v. Brewer
ORDER Denying Petitioner's 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 5 Motion to Remand for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BRET J. FRAME,
Case No. 1:16-cv-13699
Hon. Thomas L. Ludington
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
AND MOTION TO REMAND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Petitioner Bret Frame has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF
No. 3, and Motion to Remand for Evidentiary Hearing, ECF No. 5.
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);
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). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case “[w]henever the
United States magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Petitioner’s one page motion for appointment of counsel does not
allege that his case bears any unusual characteristics or otherwise establish that he is unable to
advance his arguments without the aid of counsel. Accordingly, the Court determines that the
interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel.
Petitioner also asks the Court to remand this matter to state court for an evidentiary
hearing. This court lacks authority to remand a federal habeas corpus proceeding to state court.
United States v. Robinson, 407 F. Supp. 2d 437, 444 (E.D. Mich. 2005). See also Magwood v.
Smith, 791 F.2d 1438, 1449 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[A] federal district court or court of appeals has
no appellate jurisdiction over a state criminal case and hence has no authority to ‘remand’ a case
to the state courts.”); Coombs v. Diguglielmo, 616 F.3d 255, 265 n.10 (3d Cir. 2010) (holding
that federal court “do[es] not have authority under the federal habeas statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 2241
or § 2254, to remand a habeas corpus petition to a state court for an evidentiary hearing”);
Coulter v. McCann, 484 F.3d 459, 466 (7th Cir. 2007) (“There is no authority in the habeas
corpus statute for a federal court to remand or transfer a proceeding to the competent state
court.”). The Court must deny this motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF
No. 3, and motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 5, are DENIED.
Dated: September 26, 2017
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on September 26, 2017.
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager
‐ 2 ‐
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?