Scott v. Capra
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-03923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Damon Scott v. Michael Capra, Judge Krause granted more time but denied counsel without prejudice after a preliminary review.
Damon Scott’s reply deadline was extended to March 1, 2026, while his request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
Damon Scott asked the court for more time to file reply papers in his habeas case and for a lawyer to represent him without charge. The court considered the request for counsel under the standards used for appointing pro bono counsel in civil cases.
The court granted Scott’s request to extend the deadline for his reply papers to March 1, 2026. It found that Scott had not shown that his claims appeared substantially meritorious, that he had tried to obtain pro bono counsel, or that he could not handle the case himself.
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Scott’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court said it was making no final decision about the merits of Scott’s habeas petition and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Scott.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Capra · No. 7:23-cv-03923
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
Petitioner Damon Scott sent a letter asking for two forms of relief: an extension of time until March 1, 2026, to serve and file his reply papers, and appointment of pro bono counsel. The order states that Scott was proceeding without a lawyer.
Extension of Time
The court granted Scott’s request for an extension of time to March 1, 2026.
Request for Counsel
The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, which govern requests for appointed counsel in civil cases. First, the court considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers the person’s ability and efforts to obtain counsel and whether the person can handle the case without assistance, considering issues such as factual investigation, legal complexity, and the need for cross-examination.
The court conducted a preliminary review of the parties’ submissions but expressly made no final decision on the merits of Scott’s habeas petition. It explained that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act sets a strict standard for federal review of state-court decisions. Based on its initial review, the court said Scott’s claims did not appear to satisfy that standard and that it could not conclude that they had substantial merit at that point.
The court also found that Scott had not shown that he had made efforts to obtain pro bono counsel. In addition, the court found that his filings showed he was capable of engaging with the law and challenging his incarceration, and did not suggest that he was unable to proceed without appointed counsel.
Disposition
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied without prejudice Scott’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. The order therefore did not finally decide whether Scott would ultimately receive habeas relief. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Scott.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.