Ramirez v. United States

S.D. New York

Ramirez v. United States

DecidedOctober 11, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-06981

StatusUnknown

This text of Ramirez v. United States (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/11/2022 MIGUEL RAMIREZ, Movant, 1:22-cv-6981-GHW -against- 1:17-cr-290-3-GHW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER Respondent.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Miguel Ramirez has moved for appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 1. There is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. ‘The Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) provides: Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who... is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel under the CJA, courts in this Circuit consider the same factors as those applicable to requests for pro bono counsel made by civil htigants. See eg., Zimmerman v. Burge, 492 F. Supp. 2d 170, 176 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989)); In re Prezuti, 10 Civ. 199, 2010 WL 4968244, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2010). Those factors include the likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues and the movant’ s ability to investigate and present the case. See Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). ‘The Court has considered these factors and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, the application for counsel is denied without prejudice. Mr. Ramirez 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the gavel at Dkt. No. 6.

SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2022 New York, New York GRE . WOODS United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/11/2022 MIGUEL RAMIREZ, Movant, 1:22-cv-6981-GHW -against- 1:17-cr-290-3-GHW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER Respondent.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Miguel Ramirez has moved for appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No. 1. There is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. ‘The Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) provides: Whenever the United States magistrate judge or the court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person who... is seeking relief under section 2241, 2254, or 2255 of title 28. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to appoint counsel under the CJA, courts in this Circuit consider the same factors as those applicable to requests for pro bono counsel made by civil htigants. See eg., Zimmerman v. Burge, 492 F. Supp. 2d 170, 176 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989)); In re Prezuti, 10 Civ. 199, 2010 WL 4968244, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2010). Those factors include the likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues and the movant’ s ability to investigate and present the case. See Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). ‘The Court has considered these factors and finds that appointment of counsel is not warranted at this time. Accordingly, the application for counsel is denied without prejudice. Mr. Ramirez 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the gavel at Dkt. No. 6.

SO ORDERED. Dated: October 11, 2022 New York, New York GRE . WOODS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ramirez v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-united-states-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack