Hoskins v. Davis
OPINION AND ORDER Denying 14 Motion for Appointment of Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(srussell, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
April 17, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-518
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Petitioner filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a
disciplinary conviction at his current place of confinement, the McConnell Unit.
Petitioner requests appointment of counsel (D.E. 14).
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. Service of process was ordered on February 15, 2017 (D.E. 10), and
a responsive pleading is due no later than May 10, 2017 (D.E. 12), and at this point there
are no 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. 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. 14) is
denied without prejudice.
ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2017.
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?