Crump v. BURT

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 10 Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM A. CRUMP, JR., Case Number: 2:16-CV-13381 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD Petitioner, v. S.L. BURT, Respondent. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 10) Petitioner William A. Crump, Jr., has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of accosting a child for an immoral purpose. 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. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 10). SO ORDERED. S/Denise Page Hood Denise Page Hood Chief Judge, United States District Court Dated: October 10, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on October 10, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry Case Manager 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?