Kariem v. Potter County Detention Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION AMIR KARIEM, Petitioner, v. 2:24-CV-197-Z-BR POTTER COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, ef al., Respondents. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING PETITION a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusion, and Recommendation to deny a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“FCR”) (ECF No. 5). No objections have been filed, though Petitioner did file a Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”) (ECF No. 7) after the FCR. That Motion is DENIED because “[a] civil rights complainant has no right to the automatic appointment of counsel unless the case presents exceptional circumstances.” Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988). Here, like in Freeze, Petitioner does “not raise novel or complex issues” that justify the appointment of counsel. /d.; see ECF No. 5 at 3 (“Here, Kariem expressly asks the Court to interfere with his state-court proceedings.”’). After an independent review of the filings in this matter, the Court FINDS that the FCR is correct. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the FCR be ADOPTED and the foregoing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED accordingly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (outlining requirements for motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis); ECF Nos. 3, 4 (Petitioner’s motion failing to satisfy those requirements).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. Section 2253(c), the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (Sth Cir. 1998) (requiring state pretrial detainee challenging pending criminal charges to obtain a certificate of appealability following district court’s denial of petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241), In light of the ruling in this case, the court FINDS that petitioner has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court’s “‘gacresnent of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” or (2) that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this court] was cotrect in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED. October [5 2024. Lf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE