Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 16, 2022

Carter v. Miller

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:21-cv-02680
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carter v. Miller, Judge Ramos denied Elliott Carter’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because his habeas claims did not appear likely to have merit.

Who this affects

Elliott Carter’s request for court-facilitated appointment of volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice.

What happened

In Carter v. Miller, pro se petitioner Elliott Carter asked the court to appoint a free lawyer for his habeas petition. He said he was incarcerated and had limited access to legal resources.

The court explained that it cannot force a lawyer to represent someone in a civil case. It may, however, ask attorneys on the court’s pro bono panel to consider representing an eligible litigant. The court said Carter’s claims, as discussed in an earlier order recommending denial of his habeas petition, did not appear likely to have merit.

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Carter’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail Carter a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carter v. Miller · No. 1:21-cv-02680
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Aug. 16, 2022

Background

Elliott Carter, who was representing himself, filed a letter requesting pro bono counsel for his habeas petition. He based the request on his incarceration and limited access to legal resources.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal courts cannot require attorneys to represent people without lawyers in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may use its discretion to ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney through the court’s Pro Bono Panel. The court said the relevant factors include the apparent merits of the case and the person’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The first question is whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance; only if that threshold is met does the court consider additional factors, such as the person’s ability to handle the case without a lawyer.

Ruling

The court referred to a prior order by Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommending denial of Carter’s habeas petition. Based on the nature of Carter’s claims as discussed in that order, the court could not conclude that the claims were likely to have merit. Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore denied without prejudice Carter’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. The clerk was directed to mail Carter 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.