Smith v. Stephenson

Filing 21

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice (1) Petitioner's 18 Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and (2) Petitioner's 19 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY P. SMITH,
Petitioner,

Case No. 16-cv-12241
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
GEORGE STEPHENSON,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE (1) PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Dkt. 18], AND (2)
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [Dkt. 19]
This is a habeas action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner seeks appointment of counsel to represent him in this proceeding. [Dkt.
18]. He also seeks an evidentiary hearing to make a factual record in support of his
habeas claims. [Dkt. 19].
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). The Court finds that it is premature to determine whether
justice requires appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider this request on
its own motion after it reviews the pleadings and state court record.
1

Likewise, the Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner’s motion for an
evidentiary hearing until such time as it has reviewed the record and Respondent’s
answer to determine whether a hearing is permissible and warranted. The Court
will reconsider the request for an evidentiary hearing on its own motion – and
without the need for Petitioner to file an additional motion – if it determines that an
evidentiary hearing is permissible and appropriate.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and motion for
an evidentiary hearing are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 8, 2019
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on July 8, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2