Wells v. Supt. M. King

Background

Carl D. Wells filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, for second-degree robbery. The court had directed the State of New York to respond. The State then moved for an order requiring Wells to provide a more definite statement of his claims or, alternatively, for an extension of time to respond. Wells separately moved for appointment of counsel.

The opinion notes that, in a prior related proceeding, the court dismissed Wells’s earlier petition without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies. The present order does not decide whether Wells is entitled to habeas relief on his conviction.

Rulings

The court denied the motion for a more definite statement. It reasoned that habeas petitions must be read liberally to identify the strongest grounds suggested by the filing and that the State should address the petition in the same manner.

The court granted the State’s request for a one-month extension. The State’s response is due November 25, 2025, and it must serve Wells by that date. Wells’s reply is due no later than January 16, 2026.

The court denied Wells’s request for appointed counsel. It explained that there is no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings, although a court may appoint counsel when justice requires. Applying the relevant factors, the court concluded that, at this early stage, Wells had not shown that his claims were likely to have merit.

Disposition

The motion for a more definite statement was denied, the request for an extension was granted, and the request for counsel was denied. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 13, 18, and 20, and to mail Wells a copy of the order.