Sheffield v. Gidley

Filing 13

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALFRED JOHN SHEFFIELD,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 14-10824
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 8)
Petitioner Alfred John Sheffield seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. The habeas petition challenges Sheffield’s Wayne County conviction for seconddegree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws §750.317. Sheffield raises issues regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence, his sentence, the prosecutor’s conduct, and his attorneys’
representation of him. He also claims to have newly-discovered evidence that his codefendant fabricated the evidence against him. Respondent Lori Gidley urges the Court
to deny the petition on grounds that Sheffield’s claims lack merit or are barred by the
doctrine of procedural default.
Currently before the Court is Sheffield’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Sheffield alleges that he is unable to retain counsel, that the issues are complex, and that
counsel would benefit both him and the Court. Sheffield also claims that the interests of

Sheffield v. Gidley, No. 14-10824

justice require appointment of counsel.
Sheffield has no absolute right to appointment of counsel in this habeas case.
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444
(6th Cir. 2002) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 495 (1991)). Appointment of
counsel in a civil proceeding
is justified only in exceptional circumstances. See [Lavado v. Keohane, 992
F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993)]. To determine whether these exceptional
circumstances exist, courts typically consider ‘the type of case and the
ability of the plaintiff to represent himself.’ Archie v. Christian, 812 F.2d
250, 253 (5th Cir. 1987). See also Poindexter v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 737 F.2d 1173, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Lanier v. Bryant, 332 F.3d 999, 1006 (6th Cir. 2003).
The issues in this case are not particularly complex, and Sheffield has ably
represented himself thus far. The Court therefore concludes that the interests of justice do
not require appointment of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The motion for
appointment of counsel (Doc. 8) is DENIED.

Dated: June 6, 2014

S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of
record on June 6, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

2