O'Neal v. Lumpkin
This text of O'Neal v. Lumpkin (O'Neal 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 July 28, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION TOMMY ALLEN O’NEAL, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-176 § JOHN MCDANIEL, § § Defendant. § OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner requests appointment of counsel (D.E. 5). 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. Screening has not been completed in this case and service of process has not been ordered. At this point there are no issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and counsel will be assigned sua sponte if there are issues which mandate a hearing. Moreover, counsel may be assigned if discovery is ordered and issues necessitating the assignment of counsel are evident. Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n. 1 (Sth Cir. 1995). Accordingly, petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 5) is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020. Cc \ huije K. Hampto 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
O'Neal v. Lumpkin, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-lumpkin-txsd-2020.