Chalco-Beltran v. Francis
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-09208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chalco-Beltran v. Francis, Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for detained petitioner Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran.
Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran was affected because the court directed an effort to find him volunteer counsel but did not guarantee representation. The Clerk of Court was directed to seek a volunteer lawyer, and any attorney who volunteered would represent Chalco-Beltran in the case.
What happened
In Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran v. Ladeon Francis et al., Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran filed a petition challenging his detention under federal law, claiming violations of due process and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court considered whether he should receive help from a volunteer lawyer.
The court found that volunteer counsel was appropriate because the location of Chalco-Beltran’s detention raised complex legal and jurisdictional issues, and his detention limited his ability to present his case and investigate facts. The court did not decide whether his detention was lawful.
Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer for Chalco-Beltran, while explaining that the court could request—but not require—an attorney to volunteer. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chalco-Beltran v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09208
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging detention. He argued that respondents’ detention of him violated the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The petition was filed on his behalf by his aunt, Eva Magdalena Chalco Chango, who acted for him under the statute governing who may file such a petition for another person.
The petition alleged that Chalco-Beltran was being held at 26 Federal Plaza in the Southern District of New York when it was filed. The opinion does not decide whether that detention was lawful or whether the petition’s claims had merit.
Counsel request
The court considered standards from Second Circuit precedent for requesting volunteer counsel. Those factors include the apparent merit of the claim, the need for factual investigation, possible credibility issues, the party’s ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that the factors supported seeking volunteer counsel. It emphasized that the location of Chalco-Beltran’s detention raised complex jurisdictional and other legal questions. It also found that his detention and the nature of his petition significantly limited his ability to present the case and conduct fact-finding.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Chalco-Beltran. The court explained that it did not have authority to appoint a lawyer involuntarily; it could only request that an attorney volunteer. The court also stated that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case or that another lawyer could be found if Chalco-Beltran declined the offered services. Chalco-Beltran was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer and to notify the court if he had already secured counsel or did not want the court to seek volunteers.
The court directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Chalco-Beltran through his aunt. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order was an ancillary ruling about counsel and appeal-fee status; it did not resolve the detention claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.