Carthell v. Miniard ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DERABIAN B. CARTHELL, 2:21-CV-13014-TGB-CI Petitioner, ORDER DENYING vs. PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL GARY MINIARD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Respondent. Michigan prisoner Derabian B. Carthell has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. In support of his motion, Petitioner states that he needs the assistance of counsel to file a more detailed supplemental brief in support of his petition and that he is financially unable to retain counsel. A petitioner has no 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). In a civil case, appointment of counsel 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) (quotation omitted). The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require the appointment of counsel at this time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court denies the motion without prejudice. If the Court finds appointment of counsel necessary at a future point in the proceedings, the Court will sua sponte reconsider Petitioner’s request for counsel. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 3). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2022 s/Terrence G. Berg TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2