Anderson v. Palmer
Filing
19
ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 16 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH MELVIN ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 12-11735
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
v.
CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DKT #16)
Petitioner Joseph Melvin Anderson has appealed the Court’s opinion and order
denying his habeas corpus petition. The habeas petition challenged Petitioner’s Oakland
County conviction and sentence of twelve to forty years for armed robbery. Petitioner
claimed that his trial attorney was ineffective and that he was sentenced on the basis of
inaccurate information. The Court determined that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas
relief because the state appellate court’s rejection of Petitioner’s claims “for lack of merit”
was objectively reasonable.
Currently pending before this Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel
on appeal. Petitioner alleges that the issues on appeal are complex, have considerable
merit, and involve principles of major significance.
The filing of a notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals
and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the
appeal.” Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (citing
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982 ) (per curiam)).
Consequently, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (document 16, filed April 24,
2014) is DENIED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: May 7, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on May 7, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
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?