Williams v. United States

Background

John Todd Williams asked the court to request pro bono counsel—a volunteer lawyer—for his pending petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The request was filed as Document No. 6.

The court explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases or proceedings challenging a conviction. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, the court may request counsel for a financially unable person when the interests of justice require it. The court applied the standards used for requests for appointed counsel by people who cannot afford a lawyer.

Court’s Analysis

The court first considered whether Williams could afford counsel. Based on his application to proceed without paying filing fees and information about his modest income from a prior related criminal proceeding, the court found that he had made some showing of financial hardship.

The court then conducted the required preliminary merits inquiry—an initial assessment of whether the claims appeared likely to have substance. Williams had not explained why his petition, or the many grounds it raised, had sufficient merit to justify appointing counsel. The court noted that the Second Circuit had previously rejected many of the same arguments, including arguments concerning the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, criminal liability, venue, probable cause or a valid arrest warrant, and sentencing differences involving his co-defendant. Williams also claimed that his lawyers had performed inadequately by failing to advise him about those arguments and by presenting them improperly. The court concluded that, at this stage, Williams was unlikely to prevail on either the previously rejected arguments or the related ineffective-assistance claim.

Because Williams did not meet the threshold showing of likely merit, the court did not find it necessary to appoint counsel based on the other factors, such as his ability to investigate facts, present the case, address conflicting evidence, or handle complex legal issues.

Disposition

Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Williams’s Application without prejudice to renewal if Williams later presented additional grounds. The court directed that any renewed application use the same standard form and include an affidavit supporting the relevant appointment-of-counsel factors. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document No. 6. The order addressed only the request for counsel, not the ultimate merits of Williams’s petition challenging his conviction.