Morales v. Collado

S.D. New York

Morales v. Collado

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 15, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-03177·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FELIX MORALES, : : Petitioner, : : 21-CV-3177 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER JAIFA COLLADO, : : Respondent. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: By letter docketed on April 11, 2022, Petitioner Felix Morales requests appointment of counsel in connection with this case. See ECF No. 31. A court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for “any financially eligible person” where “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In determining whether to appoint counsel, a habeas court

should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance. If the claim meets this threshold requirement, the court should then consider the indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.

Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). When a petitioner’s claims may “‘fairly be heard on written submissions,’ a habeas petitioner’s request for counsel should ordinarily be denied.” Reynolds v. Greene, No. 05-CV-1539 (DNH), 2010 WL 604179, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010). Applying the foregoing standards here, the Court concludes that there is no basis at this time to appoint counsel. Accordingly, Morales’s request is DENIED. Per the Court’s Order of January 21, 2022, see ECF No. 30, Morales’s deadline to file a reply brief remains June 1, 2022. As noted there, following Petitioner's court appearance on May 5, 2022, Petitioner may file a letter updating the Court regarding the timing of his return to New York and stating whether he seeks an extension beyond June 1, 2022. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner.

SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2022 New York, New York JESS “FURMAN nited States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : FELIX MORALES, : : Petitioner, : : 21-CV-3177 (JMF) -v- : : ORDER JAIFA COLLADO, : : Respondent. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: By letter docketed on April 11, 2022, Petitioner Felix Morales requests appointment of counsel in connection with this case. See ECF No. 31. A court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for “any financially eligible person” where “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In determining whether to appoint counsel, a habeas court

should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance. If the claim meets this threshold requirement, the court should then consider the indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.

Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). When a petitioner’s claims may “‘fairly be heard on written submissions,’ a habeas petitioner’s request for counsel should ordinarily be denied.” Reynolds v. Greene, No. 05-CV-1539 (DNH), 2010 WL 604179, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2010). Applying the foregoing standards here, the Court concludes that there is no basis at this time to appoint counsel. Accordingly, Morales’s request is DENIED. Per the Court’s Order of January 21, 2022, see ECF No. 30, Morales’s deadline to file a reply brief remains June 1, 2022. As noted there, following Petitioner's court appearance on May 5, 2022, Petitioner may file a letter updating the Court regarding the timing of his return to New York and stating whether he seeks an extension beyond June 1, 2022. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner.

SO ORDERED. Dated: April 15, 2022 New York, New York JESS “FURMAN nited States District Judge

Morales v. Collado, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Morales v. Collado (Morales v. Collado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related