From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Killian

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 3, 2010
09 Civ. 10281 (RMB) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010)

Opinion

09 Civ. 10281 (RMB) (KNF).

February 3, 2010


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Julius Jones ("Jones"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the Bureau of Prisons is violating his constitutional rights by not treating his state and federal sentences as concurrent. Before the Court is Jones' application for appointment of counsel.

"In deciding whether to appoint counsel, [a district court] should first determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 986, 112 S. Ct. 596 (1991). The petitioner's claim appears to be meritless. See Abdul-Malik v. Hawk-Sawyer, 403 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2005). As such, no utility exists in holding an evidentiary hearing on the claim asserted through the petition. The Court finds, based upon the face of the pleadings, and the determination that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary, that appointing counsel for Jones 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 10, 1997) (enclosed). Therefore, the plaintiff's request, that the Court appoint counsel to represent him, is denied.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Jones v. Killian

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 3, 2010
09 Civ. 10281 (RMB) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010)
Case details for

Jones v. Killian

Case Details

Full title:JULIUS JONES, Petitioner, v. WARDEN J.M. KILLIAN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 3, 2010

Citations

09 Civ. 10281 (RMB) (KNF) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010)