Buie v. Mulligan, 3:18-cv-2018(AWT). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20191105a37
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . On December 10, 2018, the petitioner filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. #1). On June 18, 2019, in response to the order to show cause (Doc. #15), the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. #20). A notice dated June 18, 2019 was sent to petitioner as required by Local Rule 12(a).(Doc. #22). The petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss was due on July 9, 2019. The petitioner has filed neither a resp
Summary: ORDER ALVIN W. THOMPSON , District Judge . On December 10, 2018, the petitioner filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (Doc. #1). On June 18, 2019, in response to the order to show cause (Doc. #15), the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. #20). A notice dated June 18, 2019 was sent to petitioner as required by Local Rule 12(a).(Doc. #22). The petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss was due on July 9, 2019. The petitioner has filed neither a respo..
More
ORDER
ALVIN W. THOMPSON, District Judge.
On December 10, 2018, the petitioner filed his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1). On June 18, 2019, in response to the order to show cause (Doc. #15), the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Doc. #20). A notice dated June 18, 2019 was sent to petitioner as required by Local Rule 12(a).(Doc. #22). The petitioner's response to the motion to dismiss was due on July 9, 2019. The petitioner has filed neither a response to the motion to dismiss nor a motion for extension of time. The petitioner has stated four grounds for relief that each assert ineffective assistance of habeas counsel in a collateral state habeas corpus proceeding. However, there is no constitutional right to counsel in state or federal collateral proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Thus, a petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in state or federal collateral proceedings. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 (1991); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(i)("The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel during Federal or State collateral post-conviction proceedings shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254.").
Accordingly, upon review of the petition and the motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss (Doc. #20) is hereby GRANTED.
The Clerk shall close this case.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
