Khoury v. McAleenan

D. Minnesota

Khoury v. McAleenan

DecidedAugust 13, 2019

Docket0:19-cv-02035

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Khoury v. McAleenan, (mnd 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Moses K., Civ. No. 19-2035 (DSD/BRT)

Petitioner,

v.

Kevin McAleenan; William Barr; Thomas Homan; Shawn Byers; and Joel Brott, ORDER Respondents.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondents are directed to file an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Petitioner within 30 days of this order certifying the true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the writ should not be granted in this case. 2. Respondents’ answer should include: a. Such affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner’s incarceration, in light of the issues raised in the petition; b. A reasoned memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ legal position on Petitioner’s claims; and c. Respondents’ recommendation on whether an evidentiary hearing should be conducted in this matter. 3. If Petitioner intends to file a reply to Respondents’ answer, he must do so within 30 days of the date when the answer is filed. Thereafter, no further submissions from either party will be permitted, except as authorized by Court order.

4. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. 5. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases, including habeas corpus proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556 (1987). Rather, “[a] district court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when ‘the interests

of justice so require.’” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Here, Petitioner’s motion is premature because his case has not yet been adequately briefed. Thus, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: August 13, 2019 s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Moses K., Civ. No. 19-2035 (DSD/BRT)

Petitioner,

v.

Kevin McAleenan; William Barr; Thomas Homan; Shawn Byers; and Joel Brott, ORDER Respondents.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Respondents are directed to file an answer to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Petitioner within 30 days of this order certifying the true cause and proper duration of Petitioner’s confinement and showing cause why the writ should not be granted in this case. 2. Respondents’ answer should include: a. Such affidavits and exhibits as are needed to establish the lawfulness and correct duration of Petitioner’s incarceration, in light of the issues raised in the petition; b. A reasoned memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ legal position on Petitioner’s claims; and c. Respondents’ recommendation on whether an evidentiary hearing should be conducted in this matter. 3. If Petitioner intends to file a reply to Respondents’ answer, he must do so within 30 days of the date when the answer is filed. Thereafter, no further submissions from either party will be permitted, except as authorized by Court order.

4. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED. 5. There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil cases, including habeas corpus proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 556 (1987). Rather, “[a] district court may appoint counsel for a habeas petitioner when ‘the interests

of justice so require.’” Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Here, Petitioner’s motion is premature because his case has not yet been adequately briefed. Thus, the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: August 13, 2019 s/ Becky R. Thorson BECKY R. THORSON United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Khoury v. McAleenan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khoury-v-mcaleenan-mnd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack