Pittman v. Lafler
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANTWOINE PITTMAN, Petitioner, v. BLAINE LAFLER, Respondent.. / ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner Antwoine Pittman has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the St. Louis Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan, challenges his convictions for armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Now before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. There exists no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases, and the court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 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.") (internal quotation omitted). 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 the instant case, the Court determines after careful consideration that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, and will deny the motion. Case Number: 07-CV-13820 HON. JOHN CORBETT O'MEARA
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [dkt. # 10] is DENIED. s/John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge Date: January 8, 2009
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on this date, January 8, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/William Barkholz Case Manager
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?