Watson v. Thaler et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying 59 Motion; denying 59 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby) Parties notified.(mserpa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JONATHAN HARRIS WATSON,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-349
§
§
§
§
ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Hughes Unit in Gatesville,
Texas. Proceeding pro se, he filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging three disciplinary convictions. Pending is “Petitioner’s Motion For Referral Of His
Request For Section 2254 Rule 7c Relief To The District Court Judge (Or For Counsel
Appointment, Or Section 2250 Copies of the Record).” (D.E. 59).

Petitioner’s Motion is

DENIED for the reasons stated below.
This action was referred the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Special Order C2013-01 for ruling on all non-dispositive motions and making recommendations on dispositive
motions consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The District Court also specifically referred these matters to the undersigned when he replaced
the previous magistrate judge. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion is properly before this Court.
Petitioner’s motion to refer this case to the District Court for rulings on non-dispositive
motions is DENIED.

1/2

The Court previously ordered the record expanded and further ordered Respondent to
provide Petitioner with the additional material. (D.E. 43, 54). Respondent has provided
Petitioner with the additional materials in accordance with this Court’s order. (D.E. 57).
Petitioner is not otherwise entitled to discovery. See Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814
(5th Cir. 2000)(A habeas petitioner is generally not entitled to discovery. Rather, “Rule 6 of the
Rules Governing § 2254 cases permits discovery only if and only to the extent that the district
court finds good cause.”). To the extent Petitioner is re-urging his previously denied motions
for discovery (D.E. 54, 58) his motion is DENIED.
Finally, Petitioner requests the Court to appoint counsel.

There is no constitutional

right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 329 (5th Cir.
2004); Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855, 859 (5th Cir. 1992).

Rule 8(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues
which mandate an evidentiary hearing. Here, his request for counsel is premature because at
this stage in his case there are no factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing. Counsel will
be assigned sua sponte if there are issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing be held.
Moreover, the Court may appoint counsel if discovery is ordered and there are issues
necessitating the assignment of counsel. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases;
Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.
ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2013.

___________________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
2/2