UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ARTHUR BRIDGES, # 154318, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 09-cv-11665 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

BLAINE LAFLER, 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE LATE RESPONSE AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

 Petitioner Arthur Bridges brings this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges 

his convictions for one count of conspiracy to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 333.741(2)(a)(iv), and one count of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, Mich. Comp. 

Laws § 750.157a. Respondent has filed a Motion for Leave to File Late Response and Petitioner 

has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 

 Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition in 2009. The Court stayed the petition and 

administratively closed the case because the petition contained mixed claims, containing both 

exhausted and unexhausted claims. After Petitioner exhausted his state court remedies, he filed 

an amended petition and asked the Court to reopen the habeas proceeding. The Court granted the 

request and directed Respondent to file an answer to the amended petition by December 8, 2013. 

On June 30, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to File a Late Response. Respondent 

acknowledges receipt of the order requiring an answer. Respondent attributes the failure to file a 

timely answer to a mistake made by counsel’s clerical staff. Respondent represents that, when 

1:09-cv-11665-TLL-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 11/24/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1524
- 2 - 

the error was discovered, counsel worked diligently to obtain the necessary state court record, 

prepare the pending motion, and the simultaneously filed answer. Respondent argues that the late 

filing is the result of excusable neglect and should be accepted for filing. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides that: 

(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the 

court may, for good cause, extend the time: 

. . . 

(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act 

because of excusable neglect. 

 “Although inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing the rules do not 

usually constitute ‘excusable’ neglect, it is clear that ‘excusable neglect’ under [Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure] 6(b) is a somewhat ‘elastic concept,’ and is not limited strictly to omissions 

caused by circumstances beyond the control of the movant.” Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. 

Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993). Excusable-neglect 

determinations rely on a balancing of these factors: (1) danger of prejudice to the nonmoving 

party, (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason 

for the delay, (4) whether the delay was within the reasonable control of the moving party, and 

(5) whether the late-filing party acted in good faith. Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 467 F.3d 

514, 522 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Pioneer Investment Services Co., 507 U.S. at 395). In this case, 

these factors weigh in favor of allowing the late filing. In particular, Respondent’s reasons for 

delay, while within the control of Respondent, do not demonstrate bad faith or intentional 

neglect. Further, although the delay is not an insignificant amount of time, Petitioner will not be 

prejudiced by allowing the late filing. The motion will be granted. 

 Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Petitioner has 

no absolute right to be represented by counsel on federal habeas corpus review. See Abdur1:09-cv-11665-TLL-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 11/24/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1525
- 3 - 

Rahman v. Michigan Dept. of Corrections, 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 and not a 

right.’” 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). Here, the 

interests of justice do not require appointing counsel for Bridges. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent Lafler’s Motion for Leave to File a Late 

Response, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Respondent Lafler’s response, ECF No. 30, is ACCEPTED

as filed. 

 It is further ORDERED that Petitioner Bridges’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel, 

ECF No. 33, is DENIED. 

Dated: November 24, 2014 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

upon each attorney of record herein by electronic means and upon 

Arthur Bridges #154318 at Carson City Correctional Facility, 10274 

Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811 by first class U.S. mail on 

November 24, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:09-cv-11665-TLL-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 11/24/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1526