Welch v. Smith, 655
Decision Date | 27 January 1987 |
Docket Number | D,No. 655,655 |
Parties | Elbert WELCH, Juanita Welch and Mae Brown, Plaintiffs, Elbert Welch, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold J. SMITH, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility and Ms. Mills, Chief of Mental Hygiene Department, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 86-2200. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Elbert Welch, pro se.
Nancy Spiegel, Asst. Atty. Gen., N.Y. State Dept. of Law, Albany, N.Y. , for defendants-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, TIMBERS and MINER, Circuit Judges.
We decide today whether an order denying the appointment of counsel to enable a plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is appealable prior to a final judgment in the action.
Were this question before us as one of first impression, we would find it of considerable intricacy, in light of the weighty competing interests involved and the varying resolutions of our sister circuits. Since, however, we are convinced that the issue is no longer an open one for a panel in this circuit, although some doubt may linger because our cases on the subject have not been models of clarity, we add these few words.
Elbert Welch, a New York state prisoner, filed this civil rights action in 1979. His original claim was that various state officials had deprived him of access to his personal legal papers, but more recently his attention has focused on obtaining a "secret order" of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which, he claims, reversed his state court conviction.
Welch filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, which was referred by the district court to United States Magistrate Edmund T. Maxwell. In a thorough opinion--which evaluated the apparent merits of the complaint, Welch's ability to make an adequate investigation of his claims and present them to the court, the complexity of the applicable law, and the general availability of volunteer counsel in the district--the Magistrate denied the motion. The district judge adopted that ruling, and, after a number of intermediate procedural steps not necessary to recount, Welch filed this appeal.
Our first consideration of the issue presented here came in Miller v. Pleasure, 296 F.2d 283 (2d Cir.1961), cert. denied, 370 U.S. 964, 82 S.Ct. 1592, 8 L.Ed.2d 830 (1962) (Miller I ). We there held that, while the question was a close one, we would resolve the doubt in favor of ruling that the denial of appointed counsel was appealable as a collateral order under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).
On a later appeal of the same case, however, Miller v. Pleasure, 425 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 880, 91 S.Ct. 123, 27 L.Ed.2d 117 (1970) (Miller II ), we expressly overruled Miller I, basing our decision on the mounting burdens on the courts of appeals and the absence of any direct precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of appealability.
This would leave the matter closed to any extended discussion, but for our...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holt v. Ford
...Congress has left to the discretion of the court." Miller v. Pleasure, 425 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.1970) (Miller II ); see also Welch v. Smith, 810 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.1987) (discussing the history of Miller I and Miller II in the Second Circuit). The Court there explained its reconsideration of the ......
-
Williams v. Catoe
...either to appoint counsel or to reconsider."6 See Appleby v. Meachum , 696 F.2d 145, 146 (1st Cir. 1983) (per curiam); Welch v. Smith , 810 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1987) ; Smith-Bey v. Petsock , 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984) ; Miller v. Simmons , 814 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) ; Henry v. C......
-
In re Alba Petroleos De El Sal. S.E.M. De C.
...Act); Schwartz v. City of New York, 57 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir. 1995) (withdrawal of counsel over client's objection); Welch v. Smith, 810 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of party's motion to appoint counsel to pursue a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim); see also, e.g., Tracy v. Lumpkin, 43 F.4th 47......
-
Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc.
...28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982) or the Cohen collateral order doctrine, and therefore it normally would not be appealable. See Welch v. Smith, 810 F.2d 40 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 246, 98 L.Ed.2d 203 (1987); Miller v. Pleasure, 425 F.2d 1205 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 ......