Carrion v. McIntosh
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-07374
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carrion v. McIntosh, Judge Furman denied Jose Carrion’s request for counsel without prejudice because more facts were needed to assess potential merit.
Jose Carrion, whose request for counsel was denied without prejudice and may be renewed when he can demonstrate a potentially meritorious claim.
What happened
In Carrion v. McIntosh, Jose Carrion asked the court for counsel on September 20, 2023.
The court said it first had to determine whether Carrion’s claim had substance or a reasonable chance of success. It also had to consider factors such as his ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, the availability of lawyers, and his ability to handle the case himself. The court said the record needed to be developed further before it could evaluate those issues.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Carrion’s application for counsel without prejudice. The order allows Carrion to renew the request when he can show that he may have a meritorious claim.
The detailed version
- Carrion v. McIntosh · No. 1:23-cv-07374
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
Jose Carrion submitted an application for counsel on September 20, 2023. The opinion does not describe the underlying claim.
Legal standard
The court explained that a person seeking counsel must first show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court must also consider the person’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the person’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance. The court also noted that volunteer attorney time is limited and that requests for counsel should not be granted indiscriminately.
Ruling
The court stated that a more fully developed record was needed before it could determine whether Carrion’s chances of success justified providing counsel. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore denied Carrion’s September 20 application for counsel without prejudice to renewal when the existence of a potentially meritorious claim could be demonstrated. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Carrion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.