Heath Allen Umphenour v. Donald C. Langford

Umphenour v. Langford · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · April 1, 2026 · No. 26-3040-JWL

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denies Heath Allen Umphenour’s motion for appointment of counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. The court orders Respondent Donald C. Langford to answer the petition by June 1, 2026, and grants Petitioner until July 1, 2026, to file a traverse or reply.

Holdings

  1. The petitioner was not entitled to appointed counsel because there is no constitutional right to counsel in a federal habeas action, and the interest of justice did not require appointment of counsel on the record presented.
  2. The petition passed initial review under Rule 4, and the respondent was required to file an answer addressing the petition and specified procedural and merits issues.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court should appoint counsel for the petitioner in this federal habeas proceeding.
  2. Whether the § 2254 petition passed initial review under Rule 4 and warranted a response from the respondent.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)(followed)
  • Lomack v. Farris, 2025 WL 397520, *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished)(followed)
  • Coronado v. Ward, 517 F.3d 1212, 1218 (10th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Swazo v. Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, 23 F.3d 332, 333 (10th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Steffey v. Orman, 461 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…