Anderson v. Palmer

Filing 19

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 16 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Download PDF
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?