Smith Pitterson v. United States
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:22-cv-06456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith Pitterson v. United States, Judge Rakoff denied appointed counsel, finding the interests of justice did not require it.
Carlos Smith Pitterson, whose request for appointed counsel was denied; the Section 2255 proceeding was allowed to continue on the existing record or after a reply.
What happened
In Smith Pitterson v. United States, Carlos Smith Pitterson asked the court to appoint a lawyer and stated that he could not afford the costs of the proceedings. The opinion describes his request as arising in connection with a petition under Section 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a sentence or conviction.
The court explained that people bringing these petitions do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer. A court may appoint one for a financially eligible person when the interests of justice require it. After reviewing the record, including the United States’ opposition, the court found that appointment was not warranted and denied the request.
Judge Jed Rakoff denied the motion to appoint counsel. The court allowed Carlos Smith Pitterson until December 31, 2022, to reply to the United States’ opposition; if he did not reply, the judge stated that he would base his recommendation on the existing record.
The detailed version
- Smith Pitterson v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-06456
- Jed Rakoff
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Carlos Smith Pitterson filed a motion asking the court to appoint counsel. He declared that he could not pay the costs associated with the proceedings. The opinion refers to him as a defendant and petitioner and identifies the underlying matter as a Section 2255 motion.
Legal standard
The court stated that a petitioner in a habeas proceeding does not have a constitutional right to counsel. It also stated that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), a court may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person when “the interests of justice so require.”
Court’s reasoning and ruling
After reviewing the record, including the opposition memorandum filed by the United States, the court found that the interests of justice did not warrant appointing counsel to advance Smith Pitterson’s Section 2255 motion. The court therefore denied his request for appointment of counsel.
The court permitted Smith Pitterson to reply to the United States’ opposition memorandum no later than December 31, 2022. The judge stated that, if Smith Pitterson did not reply, he would base his recommendation on the existing record.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.