Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran v. Ladeon Francis et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARLOS ANDRES CHALCO-BELTRAN, Petitioner, 25 Civ. 9208 (PAE) ww ORDER GRANTING LADEON FRANCIS et al. FRO BONO COUNSEL Respondents.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, United States District Judge: On November 4, 2025, petitioner Carlos Andres Chalco-Beltran (“Chalco-Beltran”) brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing his detention by respondents violated the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. Dkt. 1 (“Petition”).! The Petition alleged that, at the time of its filing, Chalco-Beltran was being held at 26 Federal Plaza in this District. Petition § 11-14.

DISCUSSION The Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is appropriate in this case. The Second Circuit provides that pro bono counsel may be appointed upon consideration of: (1) whether the party’s claim has substantial merit, (2) whether the nature of the factual issues requires an investigation, and the party’s ability to investigate is inhibited, (3) whether the claim’s factual issues involve questions of credibility, which draws on the skills of those trained in presentation of evidence and cross examination, (4) the party’s overall ability to present its case, and (5) whether the legal issues presented are complex. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 ' The petition was filed on behalf of Chalco-Beltran by his aunt, Eva Magdalena Chalco Chango, consistent with the proper pursuit of relief under § 2242 of someone “acting in [petitioner’s] behalf.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990); Doe v. Hochul, 139 F Ath 165, 178 (2d Cir. 2025).

F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Sec.), 669 F.3d 91, 98-99 (2d Cir. 2011).

The Court finds that the Hodge factors weigh in favor of seeking pro bono counsel for Chalco-Beltran. Principally, the location of Chalco-Beltran’s detention, both presently and at the time of the Petition’s filing, implicates complex jurisdictional and other legal analyses.

Moreover, Chalco-Beltran’s abilities to present his case and conduct any related fact-finding are significantly limited due to his detention and the nature of his petition. Representation, in this case, would “lead to a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues[.]” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61.

Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Chalco-Beltran in this case. For avoidance of doubt, the Court does not have the authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may “request” that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant pro bono. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301 (1989). The Court further notes that there is no guarantee that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case and, should Chalco-Beltran decline the services of the volunteer, there is no guarantee another attorney may be secured. Chalco-Beltran should be prepared to proceed pro se. To the extent an attorney volunteers, that attorney will contact Chalco-Beltran, or his next friend, directly.

If Chalco-Beltran has already successfully secured counsel on his own, or otherwise does not wish the Court to seek volunteers for pro bono counsel, he should inform the Court forthwith.

The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants. See https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-bono-fund-order.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Chalco-Beltran in this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to send by regular mail a copy of this order to the Chalco-Beltran in care of his next friend, Eva Magdalena Chalco Chango.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2025 fa Ro oe } New York, New York □□ cat A co Mirae United States District Judge