Carrodine v. Romanowski
Filing
14
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES CARRODINE,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil No. 2:11-15587
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KENNETH ROMANOWSKI,
Respondent,
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Before the Court is habeas petitioner James Carrodine’s motion for the
appointment of counsel.
The Court will deny the motion for the appointment of counsel. There is no
constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F. 3d 441,
444 (6th Cir. 2002). The decision to appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner is
within the discretion of the court and is required only where the interests of justice or due
process so require. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F. 2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). “Habeas corpus
is an extraordinary remedy for unusual cases” and the appointment of counsel is therefore
required only if, given the difficulty of the case and petitioner’s ability, the petitioner
could not obtain justice without an attorney, he could not obtain a lawyer on his own, and
he would have a reasonable chance of winning with the assistance of counsel. See
Thirkield v. Pitcher, 199 F. Supp. 2d 637, 653 (E.D. Mich. 2002). Appointment of
1
counsel in a habeas proceeding is mandatory only if the district court determines that an
evidentiary hearing is required. Lemeshko v. Wrona, 325 F. Supp. 2d 778, 787 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). If no evidentiary hearing is necessary, the appointment of counsel in a
habeas case remains discretionary. Id.
Counsel may be appointed, in exceptional cases, for a prisoner appearing pro se in
a habeas action. Lemeshko, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 788. The exceptional circumstances
justifying the appointment of counsel to represent a prisoner acting pro se in a habeas
action occur where a petitioner has made a colorable claim, but lacks the means to
adequately investigate, prepare, or present the claim. Id.
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he raises six
claims for relief. Petitioner has also attached to his petition his forty two page application
for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, in which he makes arguments in
support of his claims and cites to numerous federal and state cases. Petitioner has also
attached numerous additional exhibits to his petition. Petitioner therefore has the means
and ability to present his claims to the court. Furthermore, until this Court reviews the
pleadings filed by Petitioner and Respondent and the Rule 5 materials, the Court is unable
to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary or required. Thus, the interests
of justice at this point in time do not require appointment of counsel. 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for appointment of counsel without
prejudice. The Court will reconsider the motion if, following receipt of the responsive
2
pleadings and Rule 5 materials, the court determines that appointment of counsel is
necessary.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the motion for appointment of counsel [Dkt. # 9] is
DENIED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED:7/20/2012
3
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?