Harris v. Bergh

Filing 8

ORDER denying 3 petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RODNEY O. HARRIS, Case Number: 2:15-CV-11122 HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH Petitioner, v. DAVID BERGH, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner Rodney O. Harris, a state prisoner confined at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.’” 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). The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. -1- Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” [dkt. # 3]. SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2015 s/George Caram Steeh GEORGE CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on April 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on Rodney Harris #227942, Thumb Correctional Facility, 3225 John Conley Drive, Lapeer, MI 48446. s/Barbara Radke Deputy Clerk -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?