Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BUTLER v. FISCHER

United States District Court, Southern District of New York


January 8, 2003

RAHSAAN BUTLER A\K\A RASHAN BUTLER, PETITIONER, AGAINST, BRIAN FISCHER, SUPERINTENDENT, SING SING CORR, FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kevin Nathaniel Fox, United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Petitioner has made an application for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleges that his confinement by the State of New York is unlawful because the trial court failed to remove a member of the petit jury who expressed resentment because his jury service affected adversely his income stream and his ability to render professional services to persons seeking his assistance. In addition, petitioner maintains that the trial court permitted the prosecution to remove most of the black venire members in violation of the holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (1986). Petitioner has requested that the Court appoint counsel to assist him in obtaining the relief he seeks through the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's request that counsel be appointed to assist him is denied.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appointment of counsel is discretionary. See Coita v. Leonardo, No. 96 Civ. 1044, 1998 WL 187416, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April 14, 1998). Among the factors which a court may consider in determining whether to grant a habeas corpus petitioner's application for appointment of counsel is whether an evidentiary hearing should be held in connection with the petition. Where no hearing is to be held, the appointment of counsel is not warranted. See U.S. ex rel Cadogan v. LaVallee, 502 F.2d 824, 826 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Adams v. Greiner, No. 97 Civ. 3180, 1997 WL 266984 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 1997).

The Court has reviewed the petition and the answer submitted on behalf of the respondent and has determined that a hearing does not appear to be necessary. It appears to the Court that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus may be addressed by analyzing the written submissions made by the parties as well as the record generated during proceedings held in the state courts. Accordingly, petitioner's request for appointed counsel is denied.

20030108

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.