Carrasco v. Miller
- John Cronan
- 1:17-cv-07434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Carrasco v. Miller, Judge Cronan granted more time to object to a recommendation but denied Jose Carrasco’s renewed request for appointed counsel.
Jose E. Carrasco, who received additional time to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation but was denied appointed counsel.
What happened
In Carrasco v. Miller, Jose Carrasco, representing himself, asked for more time to appeal or request an appeal certificate and asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his petition challenging his conviction under federal law. A magistrate judge had recommended denying the petition, but that recommendation had not yet been finally decided.
The court granted Carrasco’s request for more time, treating it as a request to submit objections to the recommendation. It extended the deadline to February 19, 2021. The court denied his request for appointed counsel, concluding that his legal position was not likely strong enough to justify appointing a lawyer and that his medical condition did not change that conclusion.
Judge John P. Cronan ruled that the request was granted in part and denied in part. The order did not decide whether Carrasco’s underlying petition should be granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Carrasco v. Miller · No. 1:17-cv-07434
- John Cronan
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
Jose E. Carrasco filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a procedure for challenging a state-court conviction or custody in federal court. He was proceeding without a lawyer. On November 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety. Judge Cronan had not yet ruled on that recommendation.
Carrasco sent a letter asking for additional time to “fill out an appeal/and request a certificate of appeal” and asking the court to appoint an attorney. He had previously sought appointed counsel and a translator. Judge Moses had denied those earlier requests in June 2019, while giving Carrasco additional time to file a reply.
Request for Counsel
The court explained that a person seeking relief under § 2254 does not automatically have a right to appointed counsel. Under the Criminal Justice Act, however, the court may appoint counsel when the person cannot afford a lawyer and appointment is in the interests of justice. The court found that Carrasco was financially eligible because he was proceeding without paying the filing costs, but concluded that the interests of justice did not require counsel.
In deciding whether to appoint counsel, the court considered whether Carrasco’s position was likely to have substance and, if so, his ability to obtain representation, handle the case, investigate facts, and conduct cross-examination. The court said Carrasco’s arguments did not appear frivolous on initial review, but did not appear likely to succeed enough to justify using volunteer-lawyer resources. The court also concluded that Carrasco’s reported medical condition might make filing objections more time-consuming but did not appear to prevent him from making coherent legal arguments. The court noted that factual investigation and cross-examination were not required or permitted at this late stage. It also stated that no evidentiary hearing was required.
Extension of Time
Carrasco had previously asked for more time because he had been transferred and lacked access to his legal papers. The court had interpreted that earlier request as seeking more time to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation and had extended the deadline to December 31, 2020.
The court likewise interpreted the new request to “appeal” as a request for more time to file objections. In light of Carrasco’s recent medical developments, it extended the deadline to February 19, 2021.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted in part and denied in part Carrasco’s motion. The court granted additional time to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation and denied the renewed request for appointed counsel. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying § 2254 petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.