Guzman v. Davis

Filing 14

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

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
RUDY GUZMAN,
Petitioner,
VS.
LORIE DAVIS,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

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

1/2

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

2/2