Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2022

Morales v. Collado

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:21-cv-03177
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Morales v. Collado: Judge Furman denied Morales’s request for appointed counsel in his habeas case.

Who this affects

Felix Morales’s request for appointed counsel was denied, while his June 1, 2022 reply-brief deadline remained in place.

What happened

Morales v. Collado concerns Felix Morales’s request for a lawyer to represent him in this case. He asked the court to appoint counsel.

The court explained that it may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it. It considers factors including whether the claims appear substantial, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Morales’s request because the court found no basis to appoint counsel at that time. Morales’s deadline to file a reply brief remained June 1, 2022, although he could ask for more time after his May 5 court appearance.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales v. Collado · No. 1:21-cv-03177
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Apr. 15, 2022

Request for Counsel

Felix Morales asked the court to appoint counsel in connection with this habeas case. His request was docketed on April 11, 2022.

Legal Standard

The court explained that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), it may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it. The court must first consider whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court also considers the person’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence requiring cross-examination will be central, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would help produce a just result. The court also noted that a habeas petitioner’s request for counsel should ordinarily be denied when the claims can fairly be decided from written submissions.

Ruling and Case Schedule

Applying those standards, the court concluded that there was no basis at that time to appoint counsel. The court therefore denied Morales’s request.

The court stated that Morales’s deadline to file a reply brief remained June 1, 2022. After Morales’s court appearance on May 5, 2022, he could send a letter updating the court about when he would return to New York and stating whether he wanted an extension beyond June 1, 2022. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail him a copy of the order.

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.