Zavala v. Davis
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)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
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
All relief not granted by this order is DENIED.
ORDERED this 18th day of September, 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?