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
- 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.
- 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
- Whether the district court should appoint counsel for the petitioner in this federal habeas proceeding.
- 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- Lomack v. Farris, 2025 WL 397520, *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished)(followed)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 PDFLoading document…