Guzman v. Davis
OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Motion for Appointment of Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(jalvarez, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
August 17, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-158
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
In this petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner requests appointment
of counsel (D.E. 11). Petitioner cites to Texas law, which does not apply to this case. In
federal court, 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 May 9, 2017 (D.E.
6), and Respondent's motion for summary judgment was filed on July 28, 2017 (D.E. 13).
Petitioner's response is due on Monday, August 28, 2017, and at this point there are no
issues mandating 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. 11) is
denied without prejudice.
All relief not granted by this order is DENIED.
ORDERED this 17th day of August, 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?