Ray v. Perry

Filing 11

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN RAY, Petitioner, Case Number 11-11100 Honorable David M. Lawson Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder v. MITCH PERRY, Respondent. ____________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL The matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel for habeas proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 423 n.1 (6th Cir. 2005). Habeas proceedings are civil proceedings, Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 269 (1978), and “‘appointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). The Court does not see grounds to grant the petitioner’s motion at the present time. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s application for appointment of counsel [dkt #8] is DENIED. s/David M. Lawson DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge Dated: November 21, 2011 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 November 21, 2011. s/Deborah R. Tofil DEBORAH R. TOFIL -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?