Greene v. Burt

Filing 10

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion 9 Request for Appointment of Counsel filed by Brian Greene. Signed by District Judge Gerald E. Rosen. (TMcg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN GREENE, #345131,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-13008
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN

v.
SHERRY BURT,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, a
Michigan prisoner, was convicted of conducting a criminal enterprise, larceny of
$1,000 or more but less than $20,000, and larceny of $20,000 or more following a
jury trial in the Ogemaw County Circuit Court and was sentenced as a third habitual
offender to concurrent terms of 10 to 40 years imprisonment, 2 to 10 years
imprisonment, and 2 to 20 imprisonment in 2012. In his petition, he raises claims
concerning the conduct of the prosecutor, the effectiveness of trial and appellate
counsel, the sufficiency of the evidence, an amendment to the information, the jury
instructions, and the state court’s jurisdiction. This matter is before the Court on
Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner states that he is prison

inmate, that he cannot afford counsel, and that he has limited legal knowledge.
A state prisoner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal
habeas 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) (quoting United
States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). Petitioner has submitted his
habeas petition and supporting documents, but Respondent has not yet filed an
answer to the petition or the state court record. Neither an evidentiary hearing nor
discovery are necessary at this time, and the interests of justice do not require
appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Rules 6(a) and 8(c), Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion
for appointment of counsel. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon
further review of the case, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is
required. Petitioner need not file an additional motion as to this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: October 14, 2015
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on October 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3