Angel v. Phillips

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing 15 is DENIED. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel 14 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Pamela L. Reeves on 6/29/20. (c/m Lonnie Lee Angel, Jr. #405196 BLEDSOE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 1045 HORSEHEAD ROAD PIKEVILLE, TN 37367) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
LONNIE LEE ANGEL, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
SHAWN PHILLIPS,
Respondent.

No. 1:20-CV-074-PLR-SKL

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Now before the Court are Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 14] and motion for
evidentiary hearing [Doc. 15]. For the reasons set forth below, these motions will be DENIED.
I.

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States
District Courts, the Court is to determine, after review of the entire record, whether an evidentiary
hearing is required. However, the Court has not yet reviewed the entire record in this action to
make this determination. Should the Court determine that an evidentiary hearing is required after
this review, it will enter an order scheduling that hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an
evidentiary hearing [Doc. 15] will be DENIED.
II.

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

The constitutional right to counsel in criminal prosecutions does not apply to habeas corpus
cases. Baker v. Ohio, 330 F.2d 594, 595 (6th Cir. 1964). Rather, the appointment of counsel for
an indigent inmate in a non-capital case is discretionary, unless an evidentiary hearing is ordered.
Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Courts.

Case 1:20-cv-00074-PLR-SKL Document 16 Filed 06/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1345

In exercising its discretion as to whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several
factors, including the nature of the case, whether the issues are legally or factually complex, and a
petitioner’s ability to present his claims to the court. Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605‒06
(6th Cir. 1993). Taking all relevant factors into consideration and noting that Petitioner’s motion
for evidentiary hearing will be denied as set forth above, the Court finds that Petitioner is not
entitled to appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to appoint
counsel [Doc. 14] will be DENIED.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:
1. Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing [Doc. 15] is DENIED;
2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 14] is DENIED; and
3. Petitioner is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Respondent or
its counsel of record of any address changes in writing. Pursuant to Local Rule
83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to promptly notify the Clerk and the other
parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to monitor the
progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. E.D.
Tenn. L.R. 83.13. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within
fourteen days of any change in address may result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED.
E N T E R:

____________________________________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
Case 1:20-cv-00074-PLR-SKL Document 16 Filed 06/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1346