Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Carl D. Wells’s request for appointment of counsel in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding, without prejudice, because he had not shown that his claim had substance or a likelihood of success on the current record. The court granted the respondent’s motion for a four-week extension to answer the petition, setting the response deadline for December 23, 2025.
Holdings
- Appointment of counsel was not warranted on the current record because Wells had not shown that his claim had substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. The request was denied without prejudice.
- Respondent's motion for a four-week extension to answer the Section 2254 petition was granted, extending the deadline to December 23, 2025.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should appoint counsel for Wells in his Section 2254 habeas proceeding.
- Whether Respondent showed good cause for a four-week extension of time to answer the petition.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- United States v. Yousef, 395 F.3d 76, 77 (2d Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Cofield v. United States, 2022 WL 1177346, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2022)(followed)
- Anderson v. Bradt, 2013 WL 5208045, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2013)(followed)
- Brown v. New York, 2025 WL 1597903, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025)(followed)
- James v. Keyser, 2021 WL 1040474, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2021)(followed)
- Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61–62 (2d Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Tarafa v. Artus, 2010 WL 2545769, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010)(followed)
- Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…