Michel v. Lilly
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-00921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Michel v. Lilly, Judge Karas denied Garry Michel’s request for volunteer counsel without prejudice because he had not shown his habeas claims were likely substantial.
Garry Michel, who sought volunteer counsel for his federal petition; the order also identifies Superintendent Lynn Lilly of Eastern New York Correctional Facility as the respondent.
What happened
Garry Michel asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for his federal petition, saying he could not afford one and had learning disabilities and mental-health problems that made presenting his facts difficult. The respondent is Superintendent Lynn Lilly of Eastern New York Correctional Facility.
The court considered whether Michel’s claims appeared likely to have merit and whether other factors—such as the case’s complexity, the need to investigate facts, and Michel’s ability to present the case—supported appointing counsel. It found that Michel’s statements about his disabilities and mental health did not meet the required initial showing and that there was not enough information to assess the claims’ complexity or the severity of his disabilities.
Judge Kenneth Karas denied the application without prejudice, meaning Michel may renew the request later in the case. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Michel a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Michel v. Lilly · No. 7:25-cv-00921
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background
Garry Michel, the petitioner, applied for the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him in his federal petition. He stated that he could not afford a lawyer, described himself as having learning disabilities and mental-health problems, and said he did not know how to present the facts supporting his petition. He also stated that he was mentally incompetent and that he did not know any lawyer or law firm to contact. The application identified Superintendent Lynn Lilly of Eastern New York Correctional Facility as the respondent.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case, but that federal law gives courts authority to request counsel for an eligible party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. It then considers factors including the ability to investigate important facts, whether conflicting evidence may require a lawyer, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a lawyer would be more likely to lead to a fair decision.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Michel’s allegations about being mentally incompetent, educationally challenged, having learning disabilities, and having mental-health problems were not enough to make the required initial showing that his claims had some likelihood of success. The court also found that there was not enough information at that stage to determine whether the claims were unusually complex or whether Michel’s disabilities were severe enough to require assistance.
Disposition
The court denied Michel’s application without prejudice. The court stated that Michel could renew the application at a later stage. It also directed the Clerk of Court to mail him a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.