Wright v. Rivard

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Petitioner's 3 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing, and 4 Application/Request for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (Monda, H)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM RAY WRIGHT,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-14167
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
STEVE RIVARD,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING [DKT. 3], AND APPLICATION/REQUEST FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [DKT. 4]
On October 29, 2014, Petitioner William Ray Wright, a state inmate, filed a pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is
incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court are
Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions without prejudice.
Petitioner’s motions request an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim and appointment of counsel to assist him.
With respect to Petitioner motion for an evidentiary hearing, in Cullen v.
Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011), the Supreme Court held that
where habeas claims had been decided on their merits in state court, a federal court's

review under 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1)—whether the state court determination
was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law—must be
confined to the record that was before the state court. 131 S. Ct. at 1398. The
Pinholster Court specifically found that the District Court should not have held an
evidentiary hearing regarding Pinholster's claims until after the Court determined that
the petition survived review under Section 2254(d)(1). Id., at 1398. Therefore, the
Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The
Court will reconsider the request if it Court determines that some or all of Petitioner's
claims survive review under Section 2254(d)(1) without the need for an additional
motion.
With respect to Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel, the
constitutional right to counsel in criminal proceedings provided by the Sixth
Amendment does not apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus, which is a
civil proceeding. 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). The Court has broad
discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin,
822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation
at any stage of the case "[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court
determines that the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In this
-2-

case, after the Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and state court record, if the
Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary, then it will do so at that
time.
Petitioner need not file any further motions regarding these issues.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary
hearing [dkt. 3] and application/request for appointment of counsel [dkt. 4] are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 19, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 19, 2014, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda for LaShawn Saulsberry
Case Manager

-3-