Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Andrew Carter
- 1:24-cv-02901
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Carter denied Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis III’s motion for appointed counsel in his habeas case.
Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis, III, whose request for appointed counsel was denied; the order did not resolve the underlying habeas claims.
What happened
In Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis, III asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in his habeas case. The opinion states that he filed the case under a federal law identified as 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court explained that people generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer in habeas proceedings. A court may appoint one when the interests of justice require it, considering factors such as the likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case. The opinion also refers to an argument that First Amendment retaliation claims were not fully pursued through administrative procedures and were not shown to have been exhausted in Bureau of Prisons records.
The court found that appointing counsel was unwarranted and denied the motion. Judge Carter directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket; the order did not decide the underlying habeas claims.
The detailed version
- Zaragosa-Solis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 1:24-cv-02901
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 25, 2025
Background
Ernesto Zaragosa-Solis, III filed this action seeking habeas relief. The opinion identifies the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter before the court was only his motion for appointment of counsel, filed as ECF No. 12.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), the court may appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it. In deciding whether to do so, courts consider the petitioner’s likelihood of success, the complexity of the legal issues, and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present the case. When an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and the case can be fairly decided through written submissions, appointment of counsel ordinarily is not warranted.
Court’s analysis
After reviewing the record, the court found appointment of counsel unwarranted. The opinion reports an argument that the First Amendment retaliation claims had not been fully pursued through administrative procedures and that Bureau of Prisons records did not show that those claims had been exhausted. The court stated that an inmate seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must exhaust relevant administrative remedies. The order does not decide whether the underlying habeas claims succeed or whether they are ultimately barred for failure to exhaust.
Disposition
The court denied Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 12. The order did not state that the habeas petition itself was dismissed or otherwise resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.