Bowman v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2011cv00373 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION denying 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian L Owsley)(Petitioner notified with white card/lrs) Parties notified.(lsmith, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MICHAEL BOWMAN #17100-424 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL. § § § § § C.A. NO. C-11-373 OPINION DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner is a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Three Rivers, Texas who has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (D.E. 1). Pending is petitioner s motion for appointment of counsel. (D.E. 13). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 293 (1992) (Constitution guarantees no right to counsel on habeas ); see also Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 329 (5th Cir. 2004) (same); Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855, 859 (5th Cir. 1992) (same). Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues that mandate an evidentiary hearing. Here, his request for counsel is premature because at this stage in his case there are no factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing. Indeed, respondent has not yet been served let alone filed an answer. Counsel will be assigned sua sponte if there are issues that mandate an evidentiary hearing be held. Moreover, the Court may appoint counsel if discovery is ordered and there are issues necessitating the assignment of counsel. See Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, petitioner s motion for the appointment of counsel, (D.E. 13), is DENIED without prejudice. ORDERED this 17th day of January 2012. ____________________________________ BRIAN L. OWSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.