Pouncy v. Palmer
ORDER (1) Granting 134 MOTION for Immediate Consideration and (2) Granting in Part 133 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Case No. 13-cv-14695
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
CARMEN D. PALMER,
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION
(ECF #134) AND (2) GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO APPOINT
COUNSEL (ECF #133)
On April 13, 2017, Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy (“Pouncy”) filed two
motions in this action: (1) a motion requesting that the Court appoint attorney John
J. Bursch (“Bursch”) to represent Pouncy in the United States Supreme Court (the
“Motion to Appoint Counsel”) (see ECF #133) and (2) a motion asking the Court to
immediately consider the merits of the Motion to Appoint Counsel (the “Motion for
Immediate Consideration”) (see ECF #134). The Court GRANTS the Motion for
Immediate Consideration (ECF #134) and GRANTS IN PART the Motion to
Appoint Counsel (ECF #133) as follows.
The Court appoints Bursch as counsel for Pouncy for the limited purpose of
preparing and filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court on Pouncy’s behalf. If the Supreme Court grants such a writ, Bursch shall
apply to the Supreme Court to continue his appointment as Pouncy’s appellate
The Court concludes that appointing Bursch to represent Pouncy in this
limited capacity is appropriate given Pouncy’s long-term incarceration and resulting
lack of financial resources. And while Pouncy is represented by retained counsel in
this Court, that counsel has represented to the Court that he has not been paid for
much of his work due to Pouncy’s indigence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 19, 2017
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 19, 2017, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
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?