Hirst v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-08512
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hirst v. United States, Judge Abrams denied Gary Hirst’s request for volunteer counsel without prejudice.
Gary Hirst, who sought volunteer counsel while challenging his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
What happened
In Hirst v. United States, Gary Hirst, who was representing himself, asked the court to provide a volunteer lawyer for his challenge to his sentence under federal law. He said he could not afford a lawyer and could not represent himself because he had dementia.
The court explained that lawyers are not automatically provided in this type of civil case and that requests for volunteer counsel are granted sparingly. It found that Hirst’s application did not provide enough detail about the strength of his case, his efforts to find a lawyer, or how his condition affected his ability to present the case.
The court denied Hirst’s request for counsel without prejudice, meaning he could renew it later with additional information. Judge Ronnie Abrams signed the order.
The detailed version
- Hirst v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-08512
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
Gary Hirst, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. He asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. Hirst stated that he could not afford a lawyer and could not represent himself because of dementia.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, a person in a civil case generally has no automatic right to a court-provided lawyer. A court has discretion to request that a lawyer volunteer, but it does not have authority to appoint a lawyer or pay counsel in a civil matter. Under the Criminal Justice Act, the court may request counsel for a sentence-challenge petitioner when the interests of justice require it.
In deciding whether to request counsel, the court considers the apparent strength of the case, the person’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to collect facts and present the case without assistance.
Ruling
The court stated that it was sympathetic to Hirst’s condition but concluded that his application did not provide enough detail to show that the interests of justice required counsel. It therefore denied his request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date if he provided additional grounds. The court advised that any renewed application should address the merits of his sentence challenge, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, and how his condition affected his ability to represent himself.
Disposition
The request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Hirst a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.