Thomas v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thomas v. United States, Judge Nathan denied Gary Thomas’s request for appointed counsel because accommodations existed and briefing was nearly complete.
Gary Thomas was affected by the denial of appointed counsel and by the court’s directions concerning his access to case materials. The United States was required to provide another access update.
What happened
In Thomas v. United States, Gary Thomas asked the court to appoint a lawyer for his petition challenging his conviction under a federal post-conviction law.
Thomas said he had difficulty viewing materials on four CD-ROMs sent by his former lawyer. The government told the court it had made arrangements for him to view the materials, and the court had previously directed the government to continue providing access. The court also said the briefing was almost finished.
Judge Nathan denied Thomas’s request for appointed counsel, finding that appointing a lawyer at that stage would have limited usefulness. The court ordered the government to provide an update by August 14, 2020, about Thomas’s access to the CD-ROM materials, including whether he could view paper copies of materials he could not access on a computer.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09756
- Alison Nathan
- July 21, 2020
Background
Gary Thomas, identified as the movant, asked the court to appoint counsel in his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which permits a federal prisoner to seek post-conviction relief. He based the request on difficulties he said he had encountered while viewing materials on four CD-ROMs sent by his former counsel.
The government advised the court that it had made accommodations for Thomas to view the materials. The court also referred to an earlier order directing the government to continue providing accommodations. The court noted that briefing on the § 2255 petition was almost complete and that only Thomas’s supplemental reply remained. It further noted that new arguments generally cannot be raised for the first time in a reply brief.
Ruling
The court denied Thomas’s motion for appointment of counsel. It concluded that appointing counsel at that stage would be of limited utility. The court also directed the government to provide, by August 14, 2020, another update on Thomas’s access to the CD-ROM materials. The update had to address whether Thomas had been able to view paper copies of materials he could not access on the computer. The clerk was directed to mail Thomas a copy of the order.
Disposition
The motion for appointment of counsel was denied. The court did not state that the § 2255 petition itself was granted, denied, or dismissed in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.