Andre Williams v. Carl Anderson, Warden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0720n.06
Nos. 03-3626, 12-4269
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ANDRE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CARL ANDERSON, WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
ORDER
BEFORE: MOORE, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
On July 7, 2015, we vacated the district court’s denial of Andre Williams’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus and remanded to the district court for the grant of a conditional writ of
habeas corpus “unless the State reassesses Williams’s Atkins[ v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)]
petition consistent with this opinion.” Williams v. Mitchell, 792 F.3d 606, 624 (6th Cir. 2015).
Ten days later, Williams filed a motion with our court requesting that the attorneys who
represented him in connection with his federal habeas petition be appointed to represent him in
any state Atkins proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599.1
1 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e) details the scope of representation permitted for federally appointed
counsel, which extends to
every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial
proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ
of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-
conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 03-3626, 12-4269
- 2 -
There are two components to a successful claim for appointment of counsel: (1) the
petitioner must seek to be represented by counsel in “judicial proceedings transpiring
‘subsequent’ to her appointment,” Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 188 (2009); and (2) the
petitioner must be “unable to obtain adequate representation,” id. at 189. Williams argues that
any state Atkins proceeding will be “subsequent” to the federal habeas proceedings in which his
counsel has already been appointed, and that state-funded counsel is unavailable to him.
We find it appropriate that the district court rule on Williams’s motion in the first
instance and find any facts that may be necessary to do so. We therefore DENY Williams’s
motion, without prejudice to its being renewed.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
____________________________________
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk
appropriate motions and procedures, and . . . such competency proceedings and
proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.

-- 2 of 2 --