UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAVELLE SEARCY,

Petitioner, 

v.

JOHN OCWIEJA,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:08-CV-13790

HON. STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION

AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Petitioner Lavelle Searcy, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Hiawatha

Correctional Facility in Kincehloe, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner also has filed a Motion for

Immediate Consideration and Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

In his Motion for Immediate Consideration, Petitioner argues that his petition

should be decided immediately because, if the Court grants his claim regarding

sentencing credit, his recalculated, earliest release date is August 23, 2008, and he has,

therefore, now exceeded his earliest release date. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases, grants a district judge discretion to set a fixed time within which an answer

to a habeas corpus petition must be filed. The Court has issued an Order Requiring

Responsive Pleading, directing Respondent file an answer to the petition by March 9,

2009. Assuming that, if successful in his habeas claim regarding sentencing credits,

Petitioner’s earliest release date was August 23, 2008, Petitioner’s maximum discharge

date remains sometime in 2035. Petitioner provides no compelling reasons indicating
2

that the Michigan Parole Board would release him on parole 27 years prior to his

maximum discharge date. Moreover, the petition does not appear to present a

substantial claim of law or any circumstance warranting special treatment. The Court

endeavors to adjudicate all matters, including habeas corpus petitions, in as timely a

manner as justice requires and the Court’s pending caseload allows. Once the answer

and the relevant state court record have been filed, the Court will address the merits of

the petition. Thus, the Court will deny the motion as unnecessary. 

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 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. 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). In the instant case, the

Court determines after careful consideration that the interests of justice do not require

appointment of counsel at this time, and will deny the motion without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Immediate

Consideration” [dkt. # 8] is DENIED and his “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” [dkt. #

10] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
3

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: December 3, 2008

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

and/or counsel of record on December 3, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Alissa Greer 

Case Manager