Hollingsworth v. Phillips et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Adolphus Lebron Hollingsworth; denying 6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Adolphus Lebron Hollingsworth. The Clerk is DIREC TED to serve Respondent with a copy of the petition [Doc. 1 ]. Respondent is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the petition within sixty (60) days from the date of this order; Should Petitioner choose to file a reply, he shall do so within twenty-one (21) days of the response; and Petitioner is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Respondent of any address changes in writing. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/4/2024. (BJL)*Mailed to Adolphus Lebron Hollingsworth 00004739 BLEDSOE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 1045 HORSEHEAD ROAD PIKEVILLE, TN 37367 and the Petition (doc no 1 )-regenerated to Attorney Andrew H Smith via CM/ECF NEF.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ALDOPHUS LEBRON
HOLLINGSWORTH,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN SHAWN PHILLIPS and
JONATHAN SKRMETTI,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:24-CV-087-TAV-SKL

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a prisoner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [Doc. 1],1 a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. 5], and a motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 6]. The Court will address these
filings in turn.
I.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 5] establishes that

he is unable to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, this motion [Id.] is GRANTED.
II.

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 6]. In this

motion, Petitioner states that he cannot afford counsel, the issues involved in this case are
complex, he has “limited knowledge of the law,” “[t]he interest of justice will be better

1

Petitioner also filed a duplicate copy of the petition [Doc. 7].

served with appointment of counsel,” and this Court has authority to appoint him counsel
[Id. at 1].
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 decision to
appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner generally is within the discretion of the
Court. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). However, a district court
must appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner where the interests of justice or due process
so require, id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), or where an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
Rule 8(c), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The Court does not see any need for an evidentiary hearing in this matter at this
time, nor does it see or any other reason to appoint counsel for Petitioner. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 6] is DENIED.
III.

PETITION
Since it does not plainly appear from the face of the petition that it should be

summarily dismissed, the Clerk is DIRECTED to serve Respondent with a copy of the
petition [Doc. 1], and Respondent is ORDERED to file the state court record and an
answer or other response to the petition within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.
Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Should Petitioner choose to file a reply, he shall do so within twenty-one (21) days
of the response.

2

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above:
1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 5] is
GRANTED;
2. Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 6] is DENIED;
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve Respondent with a copy of the petition [Doc.
1];
4. Respondent is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the petition within
sixty (60) days from the date of this order;
5. Should Petitioner choose to file a reply, he shall do so within twenty-one (21)
days of the response; and
6. Petitioner is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Respondent 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3