Trevino v. Stephens

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 21 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION PAULO TREVINO, Petitioner, VS. WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al, Respondents. § § § § § § § § February 01, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-24 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner filed this § 2254 petition on January 11, 2016, and April 18, 2016, challenging his 2013 conviction and 45-year prison sentence imposed by the 148th District Court of Nueces County for Possession of a Controlled Substance (D.E. 1, 6). A recommendation is pending before the District Court to dismiss the petition as timebarred (D.E. 18) and Petitioner has filed his objections (D.E. 19, 20). Pending is Petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 21). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1992). Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and counsel will be assigned sua sponte if there are issues which mandate a hearing, but presently there are none. 1/2 Moreover, counsel may be assigned if discovery is ordered and issues necessitating the assignment of counsel are evident. Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 21) is denied without prejudice. ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2017. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/2

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?