Opinion
16-cr-719-5 (RJS)
10-07-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ADOLFO DIAZ, Defendant.
ORDER
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
The Court is in receipt of the attached letter from Defendant Adolfo Diaz, who is currently incarcerated, requesting that the Court appoint him a lawyer to assist in bringing unspecified claims on Defendant's behalf. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's request is respectfully DENIED.
Although “[t]he [C]ourt may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.” Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (emphasis added). The Second Circuit has explained that courts “may appoint an unrepresented party counsel” based on “factors includ[ing]: (1) whether the party's claim has substantial merit; (2) whether the nature of the factual issues requires an investigation, and whether the party's ability to investigate is inhibited; (3) whether the claim's factual issues turn on credibility, which benefits from the skills of those trained in presentation of evidence and cross-examination; (4) the party's overall ability to present its case; and (5) whether the legal issues presented are complex.” Garcia v. USICE (Dep't of Homeland Sec.), 669 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986)) (the “Hodge factors”).
Here, Defendant does not specify the nature of the claim he seeks to bring, informing the Court only that he “ha[s] some good issue[s].” (Attach. #1.) The Court therefore cannot conduct the five-factor analysis described above. See Ganley v. City of New York, 734 Fed.Appx. 784, 785-86 (2d Cir. 2018) (referring to the “threshold requirement” that “the indigent litigant's position is likely to be of substance”) (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61). In cases where prisoners “indicate, without more, that they wish to seek post-conviction relief, ” there is no “general obligation of the courts . . . to appoint counsel.” Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 488 (1969). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's request for appointed counsel is DENIED without prejudice to his making a future request, in which case he should provide an affidavit describing the claims he wishes to bring and establishing facts supporting the Hodge factors set forth above.
SO ORDERED.
(Image Omitted)