Perkins v. LaValley, No. 1:2011cv03855 - Document 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel filed by Anthony Perkins. The petitioner's request to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal for failure to make the required showing at this time . Here, the petitioner's application makes no such showing as to any likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues raised in the habeas petition, or the petitioner's own ability to prosecute his case. Accordingly, the petitioner's application is dismissed without prejudice to renewal. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 9/9/2011) (mro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCt+ _ _ _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --...c--~:--;,---- DATE FILED: '1- IJ -f J ANTHONY PERKINS, 11 Civ. 3855 (JGK) Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - against THOMAS LAVALLEY, Respondent. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The Court has received the attached pro se petitioner's application for appointment of counsel. The petitioner's request to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal for failure to make the required showing at this time. The petitioner requests the appointment of counsel to assist with his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to the Court's discretionary authority under the Criminal Justice Act. See 18 U. S. C. § 3006A (A) (2) (B) ("Whenever the . . . court determines that the interests of justice so require, representation may be provided for any financially eligible person tt seeking habeas corpus tt ) . "A determination thereon requires a close examination and evaluation of certain factors such as the likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues raised by the complaint and the ability of the indigent (here, petitioner) to investigate and present the case. 1I Shaird v. Scully, 610 F.Supp. 442, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)i Gonzalez v. New York, 2006 WL 728482, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (same) i cf. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986) (with regard to indigent civil litigants seeking counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, similar factors apply, and petitioner must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits, in order to make sufficient showing) . Here, the petitioner's application makes no such showing as to any likelihood of success on the merits, the complexity of the legal issues raised in the habeas petition, or the petitioner's own ability to prosecute his case. Accordingly, the petitioner's application is dismissed without prejudice to renewal. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, few York September , 2011 G. Koeltl es District Judge 2 ~\J ;-."'" ~T1 ~ ~ 'Oi"SVI'O ~"'" j' \~ \'''1\ '>,"'v\ ,-;:> T' '17 '-\>Y1"0 ",,\T '1 VfoTv\,\l'-'l v: ":,1 "',IS ~ ,,,A""'\ NAf""1\ ~ "'1 1,,~ ~ ,)P-j-j v.J V\0\) ~ '\ \~ ~ ~~-')o-\ ~r~f''1\ t\~\"'~ ~ i .. ~s0)0lJ" ~ \~d-~~\A'l1l\ 00 ",.h11'1\ '" 1 ~ -1~\-\ \\'bl~\"V\~ ~.'l.. it' ¢ <; , ' ) \ \ ') ~JVVI'V'\ ~ <) J -t 1""r }}I,\) £\A\j vOlt'1 ".'0,,6'0 } t '" NO;; 0 \1 ~ I, r~(;!' \ '~f I) At -0'" V) ,["0 ' \<3 6>Q s ),n cI ~?<i. .,"'" }0::i "'I-? "-'\) P~6. '1 rD"'~'). .., 1'1 'j L ~o~ (\-,.~~ -,yo"", L I -C ~t i C' '""" ,,)Q}c\ IT\'" \ 'I\' v ~ ,,'" J [.>0, '~"1t"""IA d-"\\ "-"1\, r \ ,~ ~ \ ~ '" ~ Vll -,.,,,,\,'OJ 0 --.-1 C'~6 "'t'''t>'\) """t> "C\ \' <l " .) 0 , 6 -l' ° \A 'V\v '- _. I ~~V\V)cv"'\~--r\ ~ 1>\'""~j Iv\'Q~s d-lA ~,\\' t,A?\;, i'C", = \' "0 "r 't'""'--'; .,. A6.~,& ,,6.'0. t 0 ,,?,..v. V'\ ""''0:-\ '\1 ___ C,v1("'oJI"j It' --p,p~ LiV<lI"J'\CdO L"", 1°r!0c1~'j,V\::L\ Q d) . ~ ~v~~ 14..) JU, d- -o--;)O}\ ' ~ J LL It ';; ~\'\ "I,~ -\;~.s>.0.~ ~ 1,!;AY1°J J'0j -r~7Y1t.,O} ""'" "t"'''~\' "1 o ;t)Y>oJo,\t --t VII,,, » ~yn '1. L I L. ~J\t'() j ,.'' .A -..<:;; >-,-t ~ lotJ '0 ;~ -"'IY"AI' \~>Q~\"V <:'\\' ~\~ ''1\''''''0 {""i I~ '''''WV '3 I S? VI,? 1M':> Q -" vI A.,.'.f.' ~ (1 \.Ad, l}rc\c.;Q~1 t.AI)V)S" Y1cL, (k:J)V'}90£(~ ~ ')'S'yl»l ~ .\ ~ tn,'\) ~~\"VHr-\) "11' ,oj v'"T0 \d.\.V 1 _< _ d 't. ?? ,z... (' ~ J \ \ :# ::xxI 03'Th:l XI1V;)INOlllJtlTtl 11 I -1 PVlb.,.~, ~lr:INNV~X' 1'11/\ "I .,-~~ - '1 I'd- $V\") \''0 - V0:-t )t~d.- " ~~'~r/o-L L~W ----------~---~ "'~()A (\"0)'1--]0 -1J\~\~~v"~"\~ -T~vnv -\-J~"t~::Q ~~-'(l') ,0\,.\;\)\
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
