Rodriguez v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 29, 2024
• Docket: 7:24-cv-00531
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Bibs, EDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCH DATE FILED: 01/29/2024 BRIAN RODRIGUEZ, Movant, 24-CV-0531 (NSR) -against- 19-CR-0449-2 (NSR) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER Respondent. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Along with his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Movant, who is proceeding pro se, also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF 3.) 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 litigants. See, e.g., 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 Pizzuti, No. 10-CV- 0199, 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 motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date, after relevant facts and legal issues are presented to the Court for its consideration. CONCLUSION The Court denies Movant’s motion for the Court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. (ECF 3.) The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of the Order to Petitioner at the addressed listed on ECF. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2024 White Plains, New York NELSON S.ROMAN United States District Judge