Opinion
No. 05 Civ. 7852 (DAB)(KNF).
February 22, 2006
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Petitioner has made an application for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that his confinement by the state of New York is unlawful because, inter alia, the state of New York prosecuted him for kidnapping and thereby usurped prosecution authority that is reserved exclusively to the federal government. Petitioner has requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in obtaining the relief he seeks through the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's request that counsel be appointed to assist him is denied.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appointment of counsel is discretionary. See Coita v. Leonardo, No. 96 Civ. 1044, 1998 WL 187416, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April 14, 1998). Among the factors which a court may consider in determining whether to grant a habeas corpus petitioner's application for appointment of counsel is whether an evidentiary hearing should be held in connection with the petition. Where no hearing is to be held, the appointment of counsel is not warranted. See U.S. ex rel Cadogan v. LaVallee, 502 F.2d 824, 826 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Adams v. Greiner, No. 97 Civ. 3180, 1997 WL 266984 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 1997).
The Court has reviewed the petition and the answer submitted on behalf of the respondent and has determined that a hearing does not appear to be necessary. It appears to the Court that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus may be addressed by analyzing the written submissions made by the parties as well as the record generated during proceedings held in the state courts. Accordingly, petitioner's request for appointed counsel is denied.
SO ORDERED.