Raymond Reece v. Fredeane Artis

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-10221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAYMOND REECE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 25-CV-10221 v. HONORABLE F. KAY BEHM

FREDEANE ARTIS,

Respondent. ______________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Michigan prisoner Raymond Reece (“Petitioner”) has filed an amended pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights and raising evidentiary claims. The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. A petitioner does not have a right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). “‘[A]ppointment of counsel in

1 a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege and not a right.’” Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting

United States v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793 (9th Cir. 1965)). In this case, Petitioner has submitted his amended habeas petition, Respondent has filed an answer, and Petitioner has recently filed a reply. Having

conducted a preliminary review of those materials, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted for the proper resolution of this matter. The Court will bear in mind Petitioner’s request if, upon a more detailed review of the record, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary.

Petitioner need not file an additional motion as to this issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion. SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2025 s/F. Kay Behm F. Kay Behm United States District Judge