UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT ANNABEL,

Petitioner,

Case Number 09-10762

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan 

MILLICENT WARREN, Warden,

Respondent.

______________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OR FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for discovery and for appointment

of counsel. First, the petitioner wishes to obtain a copy of the transcript in his underlying state case.

However, it is not a routine practice of this Court to provide copies of Rule 5 materials to a litigant

in a habeas case. Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery. See Beuke v. Houk, 537

F.3d 618, 654 (6th Cir. 2008). The petitioner in this case fully litigated the matter in a state court

and presumably had copies of the state court records and transcripts at one time. The petitioner may

contact his state-court attorney to see if the attorney preserved copies of his state-court records. The

Court is not inclined to provide copies of the materials until the petitioner exhausts other reasonable

avenues and provides an explanation for his inability to obtain them by conventional means.

Next, the petitioner wishes to serve interrogatories on his former counsel Alfred P. Brandt

to advance his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Yet, “‘[h]abeas petitioners have no right to

automatic discovery.’” Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Stanford v.

Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001)). Rather, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts permits a petitioner “to invoke the processes of discovery

available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the

4:09-cv-10762-MAG-VMM Doc # 22 Filed 10/01/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 397
exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise.” R. 6

R. Gov. 2254 Cases. The petitioner has not demonstrated good cause justifying discovery in the

case. 

The last request contained in the plaintiff’s motion is for appointment of counsel. A

petitioner has no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See

Abdur-Rahman v. Mich. Dep’t of Corrs., 65 F.3d 489, 492 (6th Cir. 1995). “‘[A]ppointment of

counsel in a civil case is . . . a matter within the discretion of the court. It is a privilege not a right.’”

Childs v. Pellegrin, 822 F.2d 1382, 1384 (6th Cir. 1987) (quoting U.S. v. Madden, 352 F.2d 792, 793

(9th Cir. 1965)). After having considered the petitioner’s request, the Court finds that the interests

of justice do not require appointment of counsel at this time. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rules 6(a) and 8(c).

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for discovery and appointment of

counsel [dkt. # 20] is DENIED without prejudice in all respects.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: October 1, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on October 1, 2009.

s/Lisa M. Ware 

LISA M. WARE

4:09-cv-10762-MAG-VMM Doc # 22 Filed 10/01/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 398