Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2021

Herrera v. United States

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-02957
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
CriminalPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Herrera v. United States, Judge Schofield deferred deciding Curt Herrera’s counsel request and ordered medical-record information about compassionate release.

Who this affects

Curt Herrera and the United States government, which was ordered to provide medical records and related information.

What happened

Curt Herrera, representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer to help prepare a request to reduce his sentence or obtain compassionate release because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The request was filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

The court explained that there is no automatic right to a lawyer for this type of request and that appointing counsel is left to the court’s discretion. The possible strength of the sentence-reduction request is an important factor in deciding whether to appoint counsel.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not appoint counsel at that time and ordered the government to provide updated medical records and other relevant information before deciding Herrera’s request. The order states a February 5, 2020 deadline, which appears inconsistent with the January 27, 2021 order date.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Herrera v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-02957
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 27, 2021

Background

Curt Herrera, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to appoint counsel to help him prepare a motion to reduce his sentence or obtain compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The motion was filed on January 4, 2021.

Legal standard

The court stated that the Criminal Justice Act does not create a statutory right to counsel for a motion under § 3582(c). Appointment of counsel is instead within the district court’s discretion. The court also explained that the merits of a compassionate-release motion are a significant factor in deciding whether counsel should be appointed. Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a court may reduce a prison sentence only if extraordinary and compelling reasons support the reduction and the reduction is consistent with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements.

Order

The court did not appoint counsel at that time and stated that it was obtaining additional information before deciding Herrera’s request for counsel. The court ordered the government to obtain and send updated Bureau of Prisons medical records to chambers, file a letter summarizing or highlighting pertinent portions of those records and providing other facts it considered relevant to Herrera’s proposed motion, and send Herrera copies of the records and the order.

The order states that these actions were due by February 5, 2020. That date appears inconsistent with the order’s January 27, 2021 date, but the opinion text does not explain the discrepancy. The order did not decide whether Herrera would receive counsel or whether he would qualify for compassionate release.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.