Aceval v. MacLaren
ORDER denying 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 47 Motion for Expedited Consideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case Number 2:12-CV-10897
Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND
DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Alexander Aceval, ("Petitioner"), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenged his June 7, 2006, Wayne
Circuit Court guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to deliver 1,000 or more
grams of cocaine. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 333.7401(2)(a)(I).
The Court’s opinion granting the petition was reversed by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Aceval v. MacLaren, 578 F. App’x 480 (6th
Cir. 2014). The case was remanded for consideration of additional claims, the Court
denied relief, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Aceval v. Maclaren, 2016 U.S. App.
LEXIS 22225 (6th Cir. Mich. December 13, 2016). Petitioner received an extension
of time from United States Supreme Court Justice Kagan to file a petition for writ of
certiorari by May 12, 2017. Dkt. 46, Exhibit A.
Presently before the Court are Petitioner’s motion for expedited consideration
and his motion for appointment of counsel to file the certiorari petition. The Court will
grant expedited consideration because the petition for writ of certiorari is due in less
than two weeks. The Court notes, however, that Petitioner’s counsel is responsible
for the emergency by filing this motion at this late date.
The Court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be
appointed. 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 motion fails to demonstrate that he has any
reasonable likelihood of obtaining relief in the United States Supreme Court. The
interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel.
Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for expedited consideration is GRANTED, and
his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
United States District Court
Date: May 3, 2017
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?