Leita v. Lumpkin
This text of Leita v. Lumpkin (Leita v. Lumpkin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 17, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION
JEROME LEWIS LEITA, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-CV-00059 § BOBBY LUMPKIN, § § Respondent. $
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner requests appointment of counsel (D.E. 14). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855 (Sth Cir. 1992). Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing, as an answer has not yet been filed by Respondent. At this point, there are no issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 14) is DENIED without prejudice.
ORDERED on February 17, 2022.
Julie CY | \ QQ United States Magistrate Judge 1/1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Leita v. Lumpkin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leita-v-lumpkin-txsd-2022.