Yang v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:22-cv-08024
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yang v. United States, Judge Wood denied Pai Yang’s request for a lawyer in his federal post-conviction proceeding.
Pai Yang’s request for appointed counsel was denied; the order did not appoint a lawyer for his § 2255 proceeding.
What happened
In Yang v. United States, Pai Yang asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he said he could not afford one, was representing himself from overseas, and needed help filing documents electronically.
The court considered the detail in Yang’s initial filing, including his 30-page legal memorandum and attachments. It found that the filing suggested Yang could respond to the government’s opposition, and noted that the court had given him additional time to file a reply.
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied Yang’s request for appointed counsel. The court explained that there is no automatic constitutional right to a lawyer in this type of federal post-conviction proceeding, and that appointment under the Criminal Justice Act was not required here.
The detailed version
- Yang v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-08024
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 26, 2023
Background
Pai Yang applied for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g) in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Yang stated that he could not afford a lawyer and that, as a self-represented foreign national outside the United States, he believed a lawyer could help with further proceedings and electronic filing. He also said that he had previously asked the court to appoint counsel.
Legal standard
The court stated that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a proceeding under § 2255. Under the Criminal Justice Act, however, a court may appoint counsel for an indigent person when the interests of justice require it. The court said that, in this Circuit, it considers factors used for requests for volunteer counsel in civil cases, including the apparent strength of the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and the applicant’s ability to investigate and present the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Yang’s initial § 2255 submission, which he filed without a lawyer, indicated that he could respond to the government’s opposition. Yang had submitted a 30-page legal memorandum with attachments and presented his arguments in detail. The court also noted that it had provided substantial additional time for Yang to file a reply because of his concern about electronic filing from overseas. Yang had electronically filed the request for counsel and a request for more time, which the court viewed as showing that he was able to file submissions electronically.
Disposition
The court denied the request for appointment of counsel. The clerk was directed to docket the order on both the civil and criminal dockets, including the related criminal case identified in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.