Jessamy v. Lamanna
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-09242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jessamy v. Lamanna, Judge McCarthy denied Thomas Jessamy’s request for appointed counsel, allowing renewal if circumstances change.
Thomas Jessamy’s request for appointed counsel was denied, but he may renew it if circumstances change.
What happened
In Jessamy v. Lamanna, Thomas Jessamy asked the court to appoint a free lawyer for his case challenging his custody. The court recognized that he could not afford counsel and that at least one claim might have merit.
The court nevertheless found that a lawyer was not needed. Jessamy had filed and presented numerous documents on his own, relied on arguments from his prior appellate lawyer’s brief, and faced issues that could be decided from written submissions and the trial transcript. The court also found no special circumstances requiring appointed counsel.
Judge McCarthy denied the request with leave to renew if circumstances change. The clerk was directed to close the pending application and mail Jessamy a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Jessamy v. Lamanna · No. 7:21-cv-09242
- Nelson Roman
- May 11, 2023
Background
Thomas Jessamy, a petitioner in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, requested that the court appoint pro bono counsel. He had previously sought appointed counsel, but the court denied that earlier request without prejudice. Jessamy renewed his request on May 1, 2023.
The court had previously allowed Jessamy to proceed without paying court fees, finding that he was indigent and could not afford counsel. The court also found that, based on the pleadings, at least one of Jessamy’s claims might have merit.
Legal standard
A habeas petitioner has no constitutional right to appointed counsel. Under the standard applied by the court, it first considers whether the petitioner can afford counsel and whether the claims appear likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court may consider additional factors, including the case’s factual and legal complexity, the petitioner’s ability to present the case without a lawyer, whether an evidentiary hearing is needed, and any special circumstances.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the additional factors did not justify appointing counsel. Jessamy had filed the petition, a supporting legal memorandum, a reply, his fee-waiver request, the current and earlier counsel applications, motions for bail, a request concerning a supplemental affidavit, and other letters and motions without a lawyer. The court viewed his ability to gather facts and advocate for himself as weighing against appointment of counsel.
The court also noted that Jessamy’s petition relied substantially on arguments made by his appellate counsel before the Appellate Division, Second Department. It determined that the case required resolution of legal issues through the parties’ written submissions and that no evidentiary hearing, factual investigation, cross-examination, or elaborate presentation of evidence was necessary. The court further found that Jessamy had not shown special circumstances warranting counsel. His statements about being 62 years old and having poor health were not enough under the circumstances described in the order.
Disposition
The court denied Jessamy’s application for appointed counsel with leave to renew should circumstances change. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending application, Docket No. 48, and mail a copy of the order to Jessamy.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.