Ajaj v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-05031
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ajaj v. United States, Judge Kaplan granted counsel’s withdrawal, denied new counsel, and granted Ajaj permission to respond without a lawyer.
Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj and his appointed counsel, Robert Baum. The order allowed Baum to withdraw, denied Ajaj new appointed counsel, and allowed Ajaj to file a response without a lawyer.
What happened
Ajaj v. United States concerned Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj’s request to replace his appointed lawyer, Robert Baum. Ajaj alternatively asked to submit his own response to the government’s filing.
The court found that Baum had shown a satisfactory reason to withdraw. It explained that people seeking relief under the federal law involved here do not have an automatic right to a lawyer, and that appointing one is discretionary. The court found no substantial likelihood of success on Ajaj’s identified issues and lacked enough information about his other possible arguments.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted Baum’s withdrawal and Ajaj’s request that Baum withdraw. He denied Ajaj’s request for new counsel but granted permission for Ajaj to file a response without a lawyer by August 24, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ajaj v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05031
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 24, 2020
Background
Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj filed a letter asking the court to allow his appointed federal defender, Robert Baum, to withdraw and to appoint new counsel. In the alternative, Ajaj asked to file a response without a lawyer to the government’s March 19, 2020 submission. Baum separately moved to be relieved as counsel, explaining that Ajaj had lost confidence in him and that the attorney-client relationship was irreparably damaged.
Baum had been appointed through standing orders concerning prisoners’ petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on Johnson v. United States. The opinion states that Baum entered his appearance in Ajaj’s case on August 16, 2016. It also clarifies that Baum had not been appointed to represent Ajaj for all purposes, or for every possible request for relief under § 2255.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Baum had shown a satisfactory reason for withdrawal under Local Civil Rule 1.4. It therefore granted Baum’s motion to be relieved and, in turn, granted Ajaj’s request that Baum withdraw.
The court denied Ajaj’s request for new counsel. It explained that there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceedings seeking relief from a conviction or sentence under § 2255, including a right to choose counsel. Under the Criminal Justice Act, the court may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person seeking § 2255 relief when the interests of justice require it. The word “may,” the court said, makes appointment discretionary.
The court stated that the likelihood that the claims have merit is central to deciding whether publicly funded counsel is warranted. For Ajaj’s Johnson-Davis issues, the court said its decision issued the same day showed no substantial likelihood of success. For Ajaj’s other, unspecified possible arguments, the court said it lacked enough information to determine whether those claims were likely to have merit.
Disposition
The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and Ajaj’s related request that counsel withdraw. It denied Ajaj’s request for appointment of new counsel. It granted Ajaj’s alternative request to file a response without a lawyer and ordered that any such response to the government be filed no later than August 24, 2020. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.