Snyder v. Floyd

E.D. Michigan

Snyder v. Floyd

DecidedApril 1, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-10472

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Snyder v. Floyd, (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION VAN ORION SNYDER, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:22-CV-10472 V. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MICHELLE FLOYD, Respondent,

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 4) Van Orion Snyder, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b, and being a third felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11. Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons stated below, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. There is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002). The decision to appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner is within the discretion of the court and is required only

where the interests of justice or due process so require. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

| ih HON. PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: W/\/do0aD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION VAN ORION SNYDER, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:22-CV-10472 V. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MICHELLE FLOYD, Respondent,

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF NO. 4) Van Orion Snyder, (“Petitioner”), incarcerated at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b, and being a third felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11. Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons stated below, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. There is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002). The decision to appoint counsel for a federal habeas petitioner is within the discretion of the court and is required only

where the interests of justice or due process so require. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 638 (6th Cir. 1986). The Court determines that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

| ih HON. PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: W/\/do0aD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Snyder v. Floyd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snyder-v-floyd-mied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack