Opinion
24-CV-5765 (LGS) 18-CR-0530 (LGS)
08-01-2024
NAZEER VICKERS, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, 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 letter in which he requests appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 1, at 15.) 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, Movant's request for appointment of 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 request for the Court to appoint pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. (ECF 1, at 15.)
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 is 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).
SO ORDERED.