Jackson v. Capra
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-03357
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jackson v. Capra, Judge Netburn denied Raphael Jackson’s request for appointed counsel in his Section 2254 petition.
Raphael Jackson, who was representing himself and requested appointed counsel in his Section 2254 proceeding.
What happened
Jackson v. Capra involves Raphael Jackson’s request for a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and his request for a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act.
The court explained that it may appoint a lawyer for a financially eligible person seeking relief under Section 2254 when the interests of justice require it. A lawyer must be appointed if an evidentiary hearing is warranted. After reviewing Jackson’s submissions, the court decided that appointing counsel was not warranted at this time.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied the request for appointed counsel and directed the Clerk of Court to mail Jackson a copy of the order and terminate the motion. The order did not decide the underlying Section 2254 petition.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Capra · No. 1:22-cv-03357
- Lorna Schofield
- July 24, 2023
Background
Raphael Jackson, who was representing himself, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also moved for appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g).
Legal standard
The court explained that under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2), it may appoint counsel for a financially eligible person seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, or § 2255 when the interests of justice require appointment. The rules governing Section 2254 cases require appointment of counsel when an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Ruling
After reviewing Jackson’s submissions, the court concluded that appointment of Criminal Justice Act counsel was not warranted at this time. The court therefore denied the request for appointed counsel. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Jackson a copy of the order and terminate the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 24. The order did not rule on the merits of Jackson’s Section 2254 petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.