Jones v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Stephen J Murphy, III. (AGre)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LESLIE JONES, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WOODS, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner Leslie Jones, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Ojibway Correctional Facility in Marensico, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner also has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. There exists no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases, and the court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 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.") (internal quotation omitted). 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). In the instant case, the Court determines after careful consideration that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time, and will deny the motion without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" Case Number: 2:08-CV-13388 HON. STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III [dkt. # 8] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. s/Stephen J. Murphy, III STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge Dated: February 2, 2009 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Alissa Greer 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?