Hudson v. Boggs

D. South Carolina

Hudson v. Boggs

DecidedJune 5, 2020

Docket0:20-cv-00207

StatusUnknown

This text of Hudson v. Boggs (Hudson v. Boggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. Boggs, (D.S.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Bevin Hudson, ) C/A No. 0:20-207-MGL-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden Boggs, FCI Williamsburg, ) ) Respondent. ) )

Petitioner Bevin Hudson, a self-represented federal prisoner, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on Hudson’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 17.) There is no right to appointed counsel in habeas cases. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Attorneys may be appointed for a person “seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28” when “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel may be appointed when counsel is necessary for effective discovery and must be appointed when evidentiary hearings are required. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rules 6(a) & 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. At this time, no evidentiary hearing has been set in this case and the questions presented are not so complex as to require an attorney to effectively argue them for Petitioner. Based on the pleadings before the court, Petitioner writes well and appears capable of addressing the legal issues. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for counsel to be appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 5, 2020 Paige J. LAL Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Bevin Hudson, ) C/A No. 0:20-207-MGL-PJG ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden Boggs, FCI Williamsburg, ) ) Respondent. ) )

Petitioner Bevin Hudson, a self-represented federal prisoner, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on Hudson’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 17.) There is no right to appointed counsel in habeas cases. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995). Attorneys may be appointed for a person “seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28” when “the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel may be appointed when counsel is necessary for effective discovery and must be appointed when evidentiary hearings are required. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rules 6(a) & 8(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. At this time, no evidentiary hearing has been set in this case and the questions presented are not so complex as to require an attorney to effectively argue them for Petitioner. Based on the pleadings before the court, Petitioner writes well and appears capable of addressing the legal issues. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for counsel to be appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 5, 2020 Paige J. LAL Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hudson v. Boggs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-boggs-scd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack