Davis v. United States
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:25-cv-01781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davis v. United States, Judge Schofield denied both requests for appointed counsel, allowing Davis to renew them or file a sentence-reduction motion himself.
Kareem Davis’s requests for appointed counsel in his § 2255 proceeding and for preparation of a possible sentence-reduction motion were denied without prejudice; the underlying conviction challenge was not decided.
What happened
In Davis v. United States, Kareem Davis challenged his 2021 criminal conviction under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek relief from a conviction or sentence. He also asked for a lawyer to help with that challenge and with a possible sentence-reduction motion.
The court denied both requests. It said appointment of counsel is not automatically required for these post-conviction matters. For Davis’s conviction challenge, the court said it was too early to decide whether his position was strong enough to justify appointing counsel. For the sentence-reduction motion, Davis may submit the motion himself.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied both requests without prejudice, meaning Davis may renew the request for counsel in the conviction challenge later and may file the sentence-reduction motion himself.
The detailed version
- Davis v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-01781
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Kareem Davis initiated a civil proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The proceeding challenges his June 7, 2021, judgment of conviction. Davis also moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in the § 2255 proceeding and to help him prepare a possible motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which concerns sentence reductions.
Legal standard
The court explained that a person generally has no automatic right to appointed counsel for post-conviction relief, including sentence-reduction motions. A district court may appoint counsel in a § 2255 proceeding when the interests of justice require it. Applying the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, the court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, then considers issues such as the ability to investigate facts, the need for cross-examination, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and other reasons counsel could help produce a just result.
Rulings
The court denied Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel in the § 2255 proceeding because the case was at too early a stage to determine whether his position was likely to have substance. The court stated that it may consider appointing counsel later if doing so would be more likely to lead to a just determination. This denial was without prejudice to renewal.
The court also denied Davis’s request for counsel to help prepare a § 3582 motion. This denial was without prejudice to Davis submitting such a motion himself. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions filed at Dkt. No. 2 in the civil action and Dkt. No. 709 in the criminal action.
Disposition
The court denied both requests for appointed counsel, without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of Davis’s § 2255 challenge or any sentence-reduction motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.