Perez v. Stephens, No. 2:2015cv00352 - Document 41 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying 39 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

Download PDF
Perez v. Stephens Doc. 41 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ROBERTO PEREZ JR., Petitioner, VS. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent. May 06, 2016 David J. Bradley, Clerk § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-352 § § § § OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Petitioner filed this § 2254 petition on August 17, 2015, challenging his Nueces County conviction for manslaughter (D.E. 1). Pending is his third motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 39). There is no constitutional right to counsel in federal habeas proceedings. Johnson v. Hargett, 978 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1992). Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that counsel be appointed if the habeas petition raises issues which mandate an evidentiary hearing. Service of process was ordered and a Memorandum and Recommendation to grant Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as time barred is pending (D.E. 19). An evidentiary hearing is not required at this stage of the case. An evidentiary hearing will be scheduled and counsel will be assigned sua sponte if there are issues which mandate a hearing. Moreover, counsel may be assigned if discovery is ordered and issues necessitating the assignment of counsel are evident. Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Thomas v. Scott, 47 F.3d 713, 715 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1995). 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, petitioner's second motion for appointment of counsel (D.E. 39) is denied without prejudice. ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2016. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2/2

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.