Heatley v. United States

Background

Clarence Heatley was convicted in the Southern District of New York. A motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was already pending in a related civil matter. On June 24, 2020, Heatley filed a motion asking for pro bono counsel to help him prepare and file a § 2255 motion. He asserted that he was entitled to relief under United States v. Davis and United States v. Barrett, but he did not file a § 2255 motion with the request for counsel.

Because Heatley included only the criminal docket number on his submission, the Clerk’s Office opened the submission as a new civil action and assigned it a new case number.

Legal standard

The court explained that the constitutional right to appointed counsel in a criminal case generally extends through the first appeal as of right, but not beyond that stage. A court is not required to appoint counsel merely because a prisoner wants to seek post-conviction relief.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(g) and 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, however, a district court may appoint counsel for an eligible person when the interests of justice require it. Applying the factors described in Hodge v. Police Officers, the court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider the person’s ability to investigate important facts, the need for cross-examination, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason counsel would help produce a just result.

Ruling

Judge Loretta A. Preska found that Heatley had no right under the Constitution or federal law to appointed counsel at government expense for preparing a § 2255 motion. The court also found that, at that stage, it was unclear whether the interests of justice required appointing counsel. The request for counsel was therefore denied without prejudice. The order stated that Heatley could reapply later, after the court had received more information about the relevant facts and legal issues.

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Heatley and docket the motion and order in the related criminal and civil matters. It also directed the Clerk to administratively close this case. The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Heatley had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

Disposition

The motion for counsel was denied without prejudice. The case was administratively closed. No ruling on the merits of Heatley’s potential § 2255 claims was made in this order.