From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Rapelje

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 24, 2011
Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2011)

Opinion

Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616

08-24-2011

T. J. SUTTON, Petitioner, v. LLOYD RAPELJE, Respondent.


HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS


ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Petitioner T. J. Sutton, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now before the Court are Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

There exists no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in civil cases, and the court has broad discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist in habeas corpus proceedings); Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 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.") (internal quotation omitted). 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.

Petitioner also has filed a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. He seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, which applies only to trials. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 50. Therefore, it is inapplicable to the instant habeas corpus proceeding.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [dkt. # 15] and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [dkt. # 17] are DENIED.

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on August 24, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Carol A. Hemeyer

Case Manager


Summaries of

Sutton v. Rapelje

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Aug 24, 2011
Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2011)
Case details for

Sutton v. Rapelje

Case Details

Full title:T. J. SUTTON, Petitioner, v. LLOYD RAPELJE, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 24, 2011

Citations

Case Number: 2:09-CV-10616 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2011)