Hotton v. United States of America, No. 1:2018cv07717 - Document 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 17 MOTION TO EXPAND. MOTION to Appoint Counsel. filed by Mark Hotton. The petitioner's application to the Court to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice. The petitioner also moves to supplement the record. This appears to be a request for discovery. This motion is denied without prejudice. To obtain discovery in a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the petitioner must show good cause. Drake v. Portuondo, 321 F.3d 338, 346 (2d Cir. 2003); Tarafa v. Artus, No. 10cv3870, 2010 WL 496;991, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010); Viertel v. United States, No. 08cv7512, 2014 WL 406523, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2014). The Court will review all of the papers regarding the petitioner' moti on to vacate and will determine whether the record should be supplemented. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Number 83 in the criminal matter (12-cr-825) and Docket Number 17 in the civil matter (18-cv-7717). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 12/19/18) (yv)

Download PDF
Hotton v. United States of America Doc. 19 -- - -- --- "" ----~~---- - - i!~Y~-1"1:_:, ~i_;~'J"_- \: J)'JC·. J~.~~: ;-i:· UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK HOTTON, Petitioner, 18-cv-7717 (JGK) 12-cr-825 (JGK) - against MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The petitioner's applicatio· to the Court to appoint counsel is denied without prejud:i.ce. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulat-d factors that should guide the Court's discretion to appoint co_nsel to represent an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § useful in determining whether th· 1915, and these standards are interests of justice require appointing counsel for a habeas petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a) (2). See Hodge ;;. Police Officers, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. _Moscicki, No. 511642, at *4 802 F.2d 58, 99cv2427, 2000 WL (S.0.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the 1:etitioner must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that his clalm has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hocoge, 802 F.2d at 61-62; see also Tarafa v. Artus, No. 10cv3870, 21110 WL 2545769, at *1 (S.D.N. Y. June 9, 2010). The Court will re\•iew all of the papers regarding Dockets.Justia.com the petitioner's motion to vacatE• and will determine whether counsel should be appointed. The petitioner also moves t:• supplement the record. This appears to be a request for disc:1very. This motion is denied without prejudice. To obtain dis ::overy in a proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the peti:ioner must show good cause. Drake v. Portuondo, 321 F.3d 338, 346 (2d Cir. 2003); Tarafa v. Artus, No. 10cv3870, 2010 WL 496;991, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010); Viertel v. United States, No. 08cv7512, 2014 WL 406523, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2014). 'l'he Court will review all of the papers regarding the petitioner' motion to vacate and will determine whether the record sho.ld be supplemented. The Clerk is directed to cl·:se Docket Number 83 in the criminal matter (12-cr-825) and :•ocket Number 17 in the civil matter (18-cv-7717) SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York December 19, 2018 John G. Koeltl United States District Judge

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.