Sweeney v. Christiansen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

William Raymond Sweeney, Jr.,

Petitioner, Case No. 19-cv-13031

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge John Christiansen, Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen Respondent.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [3]

Michigan state prisoner William Raymond Sweeney, Jr., has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner does not have an absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur-Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 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 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). A habeas

petitioner may obtain representation at any stage of the case “[w]henever the United States magistrate or the court determines that the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court determines

that the interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for

appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 3.) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 7, 2019 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 7, 2019.

s/William Barkholz Case Manager