UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM RAY WRIGHT,

 

Petitioner, Case No. 2:14-cv-14167

 Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.

STEVE RIVARD,

Respondent.

________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY

HEARING [DKT. 3], AND APPLICATION/REQUEST FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [DKT. 4]

On October 29, 2014, Petitioner William Ray Wright, a state inmate, filed a pro

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is

incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Pending before the Court are

Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motions without prejudice.

Petitioner’s motions request an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim and appointment of counsel to assist him. 

With respect to Petitioner motion for an evidentiary hearing, in Cullen v.

Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011), the Supreme Court held that

where habeas claims had been decided on their merits in state court, a federal court's

2:14-cv-14167-DPH-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 12/19/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 553
review under 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1)—whether the state court determination

was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law—must be

confined to the record that was before the state court. 131 S. Ct. at 1398. The

Pinholster Court specifically found that the District Court should not have held an

evidentiary hearing regarding Pinholster's claims until after the Court determined that

the petition survived review under Section 2254(d)(1). Id., at 1398. Therefore, the

Court will deny without prejudice Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing. The

Court will reconsider the request if it Court determines that some or all of Petitioner's

claims survive review under Section 2254(d)(1) without the need for an additional

motion.

With respect to Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel, the

constitutional right to counsel in criminal proceedings provided by the Sixth

Amendment does not apply to an application for writ of habeas corpus, which is a

civil proceeding. Cobas v. Burgess, 306 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,

538 U.S. 984 (2003), reh. denied, 539 U.S. 970 (2003). The Court has broad

discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. 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). In this

-2-

2:14-cv-14167-DPH-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 12/19/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 554
case, after the Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and state court record, if the

Court determines that appointment of counsel is necessary, then it will do so at that

time. 

Petitioner need not file any further motions regarding these issues.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary

hearing [dkt. 3] and application/request for appointment of counsel [dkt. 4] are

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

/s/Denise Page Hood

DENISE PAGE HOOD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 19, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on December 19, 2014, by electronic means and/or

ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda for LaShawn Saulsberry

Case Manager

-3-

2:14-cv-14167-DPH-MKM Doc # 9 Filed 12/19/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 555