Odom v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 2, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-00010
StatusUnknown

This text of Odom v. United States (Odom v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Odom v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 17-CR-321-1 (JMF) -against- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARCUS ODOM, Defendant. JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Defendant Marcus Odom pleaded guilty to using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and was sentenced principally to 300 months in prison and three years of post-release supervision. See United States v. Odom, ECF 1:17-CR-321, 26 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2018). Odom did not appeal. On December 19, 2019, Odom filed a motion requesting pro bono counsel to assist him with preparing and filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In the motion for counsel, Odom claims that he is entitled to relief under United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which held that the definition of a crime of violence found in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. Odom has not filed a § 2255 motion. DISCUSSION A. Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Odom’s motion for counsel may be construed as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he seeks to challenge the legality of his conviction and sentence, and he sets forth, albeit briefly, the basis for his application for § 2255 relief. See Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146-47 (2d Cir. 2001) (Section 2255 “is generally the proper vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to his conviction and sentence”). If Odom does not want to pursue relief under § 2255, he may notify the Court in writing within sixty days that he wishes to withdraw the application. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003); Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Odom will have one opportunity within the limitations period for a full adjudication of his

claims. For that reason, the Court grants Odom leave to file a § 2255 motion that sets forth all his grounds for relief and all facts in support of those grounds. If Odom does not respond to this order within the time allowed, the motion for counsel will remain designated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.1 B. Motion for Counsel In the criminal context, the right to appointed counsel “extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987). Courts have no obligation “to appoint counsel for prisoners who indicate, without more, that they wish to seek post- conviction relief.” Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969). Instead, “the initial burden of presenting a claim to post-conviction relief usually rests upon the indigent prisoner himself with such help as he can obtain within the prison walls or the prison system.” Id.

District courts do have discretion to appoint counsel. Section 2255(g) expressly provides that a district court “may appoint counsel,” and that appointment of counsel is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Section 3006A(a)(2) provides that representation may be provided “for any financially eligible person” when “the interests of justice so require.”

1 A federal prisoner seeking relief under § 2255 must generally file a motion within one year from the latest of four benchmark dates: (1) when the judgment of conviction becomes final; (2) when a government-created impediment to making such a motion is removed; (3) when the right asserted is initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if it has been made retroactively available to cases on collateral review; or (4) when the facts supporting the claim(s) could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). In determining whether the “interests of justice” require the appointment of counsel, district courts look to Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1985), a Second Circuit case articulating the factors that courts should consider in determining whether to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent civil litigant in an analogous context. See, e.g., Toron v.

United States, 281 F. Supp. 2d 591, 593 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Harrison v. United States, Nos. 06- CV-261S & 03-CR-0114-001S, 2006 WL 1867929, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006). Hodge dictates that “[i]n deciding whether to appoint counsel, . . . the district judge should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. “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.” Id. at 61-62. The Court has considered these factors and finds that appointment of counsel is not

warranted at this time. Odom does not have a right under the United States Constitution or any other federal law to the appointment of counsel at government expense to assist him in preparing a § 2255 motion. And, while Odom provides the grounds underlying his application for § 2255 relief, it is not clear at this stage whether the interests of justice so require the assignment of counsel. Accordingly, Odom’s request for counsel is denied without prejudice. Odom may reapply for appointment of counsel at a later date, after the Court has had more of the relevant facts and legal issues presented to it for its consideration. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Odom, noting service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to open a new civil action, and to docket Odom’s motion for counsel and this Order in the new case. The motion for counsel is denied without prejudice. The Court finds that Odom’s motion for counsel should be construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Within sixty days from the date of this order, Odom is directed to file an amended § 2255 motion setting forth all his grounds for relief and any supporting facts. To that end, a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Form is attached to this Order. If Odom does not want to pursue relief under § 2255, he may notify the Court in writing within thirty days that he wishes to withdraw this action.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Johnson v. Avery
393 U.S. 483 (Supreme Court, 1969)
Pennsylvania v. Finley
481 U.S. 551 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Eric Adams v. United States
155 F.3d 582 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Toron v. United States
281 F. Supp. 2d 591 (E.D. New York, 2003)
United States v. Davis
588 U.S. 445 (Supreme Court, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Odom v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odom-v-united-states-nysd-2020.