UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TYRELL RICHARDSON,

Petitioner, 

v.

DEBRA L. SCUTT,

Respondent. 

/

Case No. 09-CV-11088

Honorable Avern Cohn

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EVIDENTIARY HEARING

I.

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed his application

with this Court on March 24, 2009. (Dkt. 1.) Now before the Court is Petitioner’s

“Motion to Appoint Counsel and For Evidentiary Hearing.” (Dkt. # 5.) For the

reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion will be denied without prejudice.

II.

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel to assist him with his

petition for writ of habeas corpus. There exists no constitutional right to the

appointment of counsel in civil cases such as this one, and the court has broad

discretion in determining whether counsel should be appointed. 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). Here, the interests of justice do not require appointment of

2:09-cv-11088-AC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 167
2

counsel at this time.

Regarding Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, if a habeas petition

is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the judge, after the answer

and the transcript and record of state court proceedings are filed, shall, upon a

review of those proceedings and of the expanded record, if any, determine whether

an evidentiary hearing is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not

required, the judge shall make such disposition of the petition as justice shall require.

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 8(a). It is within the district court’s discretion to

determine whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. An

evidentiary hearing is not required where the record is complete or if the petition

raises only legal claims that can be resolved without the taking of additional

evidence. 

In this case, the motion for an evidentiary hearing will be denied without

prejudice. Respondent’s answer and Rule 5 materials is not due until September

30, 2009. After a careful review of Respondent’s answer and the Rule 5 materials,

the Court will then determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve

Petitioner’s claims.

III.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and for evidentiary

hearing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner's motion will be reconsidered

if, following receipt of Respondent’s answer to the petition and the filing of the

2:09-cv-11088-AC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 168
3

necessary Rule 5 materials, the Court determines that appointment of counsel is

necessary and that an evidentiary is required. Petitioner need not file any further

motions.

SO ORDERED.

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 18, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Tyrell

Richardson, 601396, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility 3500 N. Elm Road,

Jackson, MI 49201 and the attorneys of record on this date, August 18, 2009, by

electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-11088-AC-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 08/18/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 169