Aceval v. MacLaren

Filing 48

ORDER denying 46 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 47 Motion for Expedited Consideration. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ALEXANDER ACEVAL, Petitioner, Case Number 2:12-CV-10897 Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow v. DUNCAN MACLAREN, Respondent. ________________________________________/ 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. SO ORDERED. S/Arthur J. Tarnow Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Court Date: May 3, 2017 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?