Wise v. Berghuis
ORDER denying 33 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:13-cv-10360
Hon. Paul D. Borman
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL [DKT. 33]
On January 29, 2013, Petitioner Angelo Wise, a state inmate, filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 27, 2015, after Petitioner
alleged that he discovered new evidence supporting new unexhausted claims, the
Court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay the case so that he could pursue relief in the
state courts. On October 29, 2015, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to extend
time to file his post-conviction review proceeding in the state trial court. Pending
before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. [Dkt. 33]. Petitioner asserts
that he requires counsel to assist him in pursuing his state court remedies.
The constitutional right to counsel in criminal proceedings provided by the
Sixth Amendment does not apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus or during
state collateral proceedings. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002), cert.
denied, 538 U.S. 984 (2003), reh. denied, 539 U.S. 970 (2003); Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). The current action is being held in abeyance, and
the Court finds that whether Petitioner merits appointment of counsel in the state
courts to assist him during his state post-conviction proceeding is a matter for the state
courts to decide. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED.
s/Paul D. Borman
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
Dated: February 13, 2018
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon
each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on
February 13, 2018.
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?