Rose v. Bauman
ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 2:17-cv-10836
Hon. Paul D. Borman
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [Dkt. 3]
On March 16, 2017, Petitioner Karey Rose, a state inmate, filed a 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 is Petitioner’s motion
to appoint counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion
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). 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 case, the Court has yet to receive a response from Respondent to the petition.
The Court therefore finds that it is premature to determine whether justice requires
appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider this request on its own motion
when it reviews the answer and state court record.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 1, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on June
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?