Saleh v. United States
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-10535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saleh v. United States, Judge Moses denied Redhwan Saleh’s request for appointed counsel in his sentence challenge, without prejudice.
Redhwan Saleh’s request for volunteer appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the order did not resolve his underlying sentence challenge.
What happened
In Saleh v. United States, Redhwan Saleh asked the court to appoint a lawyer to help him challenge his 63-month sentence. He said he could not afford a lawyer, spoke little English, read even less, and might lose help from another inmate who had assisted him.
The court said people challenging federal sentences generally do not have an automatic right to a lawyer. Before requesting a volunteer lawyer, the court must first decide whether the legal claim appears likely to have substance. The court found that Saleh had not made that initial showing. It also noted that he had filed written replies in English and that the case was fully presented in writing.
Judge Barbara Moses denied Saleh’s application for counsel without prejudice. The court allowed him to renew the request if it later grants an evidentiary hearing or if he otherwise shows that his claim may have merit. The order addressed only the request for counsel, not the merits of Saleh’s sentence challenge.
The detailed version
- Saleh v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-10535
- Andrew Carter
- July 23, 2021
Background
Redhwan Saleh, representing himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct the 63-month sentence he received after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit arson and arson. He principally argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Saleh separately asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him in the § 2255 proceeding. He stated that he had no funds to hire counsel, spoke little English, and read even less. He also said that another inmate who had helped prepare his filings was scheduled for release.
Legal standard
The court explained that a person bringing a federal sentence challenge does not have an automatic right to counsel. A court may request that a volunteer lawyer represent an indigent litigant, but it cannot require an attorney to accept the representation or pay the attorney in a civil matter. Such requests should be granted sparingly.
The threshold question was whether Saleh’s claim appeared likely to have substance. If that requirement is met, the court may also consider factors such as the person’s ability to pay, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, the ability to investigate and present the case without assistance, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether an evidentiary hearing requiring witness questioning may be needed.
Ruling
The court found that Saleh had not made the required initial showing that his § 2255 petition was likely to succeed. The court also noted that he had not described independent efforts to obtain counsel and that, despite his concerns, he had filed papers in English responding to the government’s opposition. Because the motion was fully briefed and witness questioning would not be needed unless the court later granted an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal if a hearing is granted or if Saleh otherwise demonstrates a potentially meritorious claim.
The order closed the counsel motion and directed that a copy be mailed to Saleh. It did not decide whether Saleh’s sentence should be vacated or whether his ineffective-assistance claim would ultimately succeed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.