Keita v. Fields

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Application to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006(A)(g)(Habeas Corpus Petition). Having reviewed Petitioner's initial petition, Respondent's response papers, and the record from Petitioner's state-court p roceedings, the Court concludes that appointment of counsel would not be in the interests of justice and therefore DENIES Petitioner's application. As a courtesy, however, the Court hereby EXTENDS the deadline for Petitioner to submit his reply brief until November 30, 2020. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 143 n.5 (2012); Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). In addition, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is t herefore denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 12 and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/13/2020) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:20-cv-06154-JMF Document 13 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MULBAH KEITA,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
-v:
:
LEROY FIELDS,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

20-CV-6154 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On October 9, 2020, the Court received Petitioner’s second application for counsel. See
ECF No. 12. In determining whether to grant an application for counsel, the Court must consider
“the merits of [petitioner’s] case, the [petitioner’s] ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to
obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the [petitioner’s] ability to gather the facts and
deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172
(2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). As a threshold matter, in order to qualify for counsel Petitioner
must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police
Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). In reviewing a request for counsel, the Court must
be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity and, thus, should
not grant a request for counsel indiscriminately. See Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172.
Having reviewed Petitioner’s initial petition, Respondent’s response papers, and the
record from Petitioner’s state-court proceedings, the Court concludes that appointment of
counsel would not be in the interests of justice and therefore DENIES Petitioner’s application.

Case 1:20-cv-06154-JMF Document 13 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2

As a courtesy, however, the Court hereby EXTENDS the deadline for Petitioner to submit his
reply brief until November 30, 2020.
As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a
certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 143 n.5 (2012); Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). In
addition, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is therefore denied. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 12 and to mail a copy of this
Order to Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2020
New York, New York

__________________________________
_______________________________
_
JESSE M. FURMAN
FURMAN
United States District Judge

2