Filed: Feb. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [3], AND PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [4] LAURIE J. MICHELSON , District Judge . Alvin Richardson has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (ECF No. 1.) He now seeks appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to make a factual record in support of his habeas claims. (ECF No. 3, 4). A prisoner has no absolute right to counsel in a federal habeas
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [3], AND PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [4] LAURIE J. MICHELSON , District Judge . Alvin Richardson has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. (ECF No. 1.) He now seeks appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to make a factual record in support of his habeas claims. (ECF No. 3, 4). A prisoner has no absolute right to counsel in a federal habeas c..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [3], AND PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING [4]
LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge.
Alvin Richardson has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) He now seeks appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing to make a factual record in support of his habeas claims. (ECF No. 3, 4).
A prisoner has no absolute right to counsel in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, Post v. Bradshaw, 422 F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005), and so the appointment of counsel is committed to this Court's discretion, see Arms v. State of Tenn., 810 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1986). A habeas petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case "[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so require." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court finds that it is premature to determine whether justice requires appointment of counsel. The Court will reconsider this request on its own motion after it reviews the pleadings and state court record.
The Court will also deny Richardson's motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice. This Court is not permitted to expand the state-court record to assess the reasonableness of a state court's adjudication of a claim on the merits. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181-82 (2011). So the Court will reconsider the request on its own motion if it determines that some or all of Richardson's claims survive review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
In familiarizing itself with this case, the Court discovered that Richardson may have absconded from parole. See MDOC Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS), http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/otis2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=254306. But the Court will continue to rely on the contact information provided on the docket and will leave it to the parties to address any impact this may have on the case.
Accordingly, Richardson's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) and motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 4) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
