Griffin v. Warden Perry Correctional Institution
ORDER denying the petitioner's 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel and extending the petitioner's time in which to respond to the 25 Motion for Summary Judgment to July 11, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 6/27/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Warden Perry Correctional Institution,
C/A No. 0:16-3691-MGL-PJG
Petitioner Terrance Griffin, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this habeas action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the court on petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel. (ECF No. 38.)
There is no right to appointed counsel in habeas cases. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S.
551, 555 (1987); Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Attorneys may be appointed for
a person “seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28” when “the court determines
that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel may be appointed
when counsel is necessary for effective discovery and must be appointed when evidentiary hearings
are required. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rules 6(a) & 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. At this
time, no evidentiary hearing has been set in this case and the questions presented are not so complex
as to require an attorney to effectively argue them for the Petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner’s
request for counsel to be appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), is
Petitioner’s time in which to respond to the respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 25) is hereby extended to July 11, 2017. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of the
Page 1 of 2
Petition for failure to prosecute. Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
June 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Page 2 of 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?