Zavala v. Davis

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying 21 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION SALVADOR ZAVALA, Petitioner, VS. LORIE DAVIS, Respondent. § § § § § § § § September 18, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-122 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL In this § 2254 petition challenging a 2016 disciplinary conviction, Petitioner requests 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. Service of process was ordered, Respondent filed her motion for summary judgment (D.E. 14), and Petitioner has filed his response (D.E. 20). The issues in this action are not complex, and at this point there are no issues that suggest an evidentiary hearing would be warranted. An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and counsel will be assigned sua sponte if there are issues mandating 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. 21) is denied without prejudice. 1/2 All relief not granted by this order is DENIED. ORDERED this 18th day of September, 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?