Azeez v. John/Jane Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-06028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Azeez v. Lilly: Judge McCarthy denied counsel for the habeas petitioner, allowing renewal if circumstances change.
Abdool Azeez’s request for appointed counsel was denied, although he may renew the request if circumstances change. The order also concerns Lynn Lilly as the respondent, but it does not decide the underlying habeas petition.
What happened
In Azeez v. Lilly, Abdool Azeez asked the court to appoint a free lawyer for his petition challenging his custody under federal habeas law. The respondent did not respond.
The court found that Azeez could not afford a lawyer and that at least one claim might have merit. But it found that he had presented his claims clearly, shown no special circumstances or unusual complexity, and did not need a lawyer for discovery or factual investigation.
Judge McCarthy denied the application for counsel, with leave to renew if circumstances change. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Azeez, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Azeez v. John/Jane Doe · No. 7:22-cv-06028
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 15, 2023
Background
Abdool Azeez, who was representing himself, applied for appointment of pro bono counsel—an attorney provided without charge—for his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The application was dated November 26, 2023. Lynn Lilly, the superintendent identified as the respondent, did not respond.
Legal standard
The court explained that a habeas petitioner does not have a constitutional right to counsel. The court may appoint counsel when the person cannot afford representation and the interests of justice require it. The court first considers whether the petitioner can afford counsel and whether the petition appears likely to have substance. If those conditions are met, the court may consider additional factors, including the case’s factual and legal complexity, the petitioner’s ability to handle the case without help, and whether counsel would more likely lead to a fair resolution.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Azeez was indigent and could not afford counsel. In his application to proceed without paying court fees, he stated that he had about $175 in his bank account and spent his monthly stipend of $100–$150 on food. The court also found, based on the face of the petition, that at least one of his claims may have merit.
The court nevertheless concluded that appointing counsel was not warranted at that time. It noted that Azeez had thoroughly litigated the case without a lawyer, including filing his petition and motions with statutory and constitutional citations, relevant facts, and procedural history. The court also found that he had not shown special circumstances, such as language difficulties or mental health problems, and that his claims were not so complex or unusual that they required an attorney.
Azeez sought counsel in part to help obtain discovery. The court explained that habeas petitioners are not ordinarily entitled to discovery and may receive it only when the court finds good cause. It determined that this case involved legal issues already presented in the petition and addressed in the respondent’s response, and that no factual investigation, cross-examination, or extensive evidence presentation was necessary.
Disposition
Judge Judith C. McCarthy denied Azeez’s application for counsel, with leave to renew if circumstances change. The clerk was requested to mail a copy of the order to Azeez.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.