Savchuk v. Laydum

Filing 13

ORDER denying 3 Application filed by Alex Savchuk without prejudice and Denying as Moot 7 MOTION to Expedite the Decision Regarding the Application for Appointment of Counsel filed by Alex Savchuk. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (CGre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALEX SAVCHUK, Petitioner, v. DOCTOR LAYDUM, Respondent, ___________________________________________/ ORDER DENYING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING AS MOOT THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE THE DECISION REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL On October 16, 2008, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of counsel, together with the financial affidavit evidencing that the petitioner is indigent. On November 26, 2008, the petitioner followed his petition up with the motion in essence requesting to expedite the consideration of his initial request. 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). Case No. 08-14400 Honorable David M. Lawson

"`[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. If,

however, the Court determines that counsel should be appointed for the plaintiff in the future, the Court may revisit the petitioner's request. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner's application for appointment of counsel [dkt # 3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for an answer to the filed application for appointment of counsel [dkt # 7] is DENIED as moot. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: May 26, 2009

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 May 26, 2009. s/Lisa M. Ware LISA M. WARE