Burgara v. Jewish Board
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:24-cv-03493
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Burgara v. Jewish Board, Judge Lehrburger denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for free counsel, while finding her claims potentially substantial.
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without a lawyer, must continue the case without court-requested volunteer counsel for now; the court left open a later application.
What happened
In Burgara v. Jewish Board, Plaintiff, who is representing herself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for her case. She alleges that the Jewish Board violated disability-discrimination and retaliation laws after workplace events involving her medical condition and disabilities.
The court said Plaintiff’s allegations appeared likely to have substance. It nevertheless concluded that the requirements for requesting volunteer counsel had not been met at this stage. The court left open the possibility of a later application if developments in the case support appointing counsel.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger denied the request without prejudice, meaning the request may be made again. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Burgara v. Jewish Board · No. 1:24-cv-03493
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 25, 2024
Background
Plaintiff filed the case without a lawyer, received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and requested appointment of pro bono counsel. The court explained that, in a civil case, indigent status does not require the court to provide a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request that a lawyer volunteer to represent an eligible litigant, but it cannot require or pay a lawyer to do so.
Plaintiff alleges that she has a “Chain 1 Malformation” and a learning disability or dyslexia. She claims that the Jewish Board violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law by disciplining her for taking a day off because of her medical condition and retaliating after she complained. She also describes a supervisor becoming more aggressive after a disagreement and refers to difficulties obtaining a permit during previous employment. Plaintiff seeks damages for lost pay and the period when she was unemployed.
Legal standard
The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers for requests for volunteer counsel. The litigant must first show inability to afford counsel and must also show that the claim appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers factors such as the litigant’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason that counsel would help produce a fair result. The court emphasized that each request must be evaluated on its own facts.
Ruling
The court found that Plaintiff’s allegations state a claim that “seems likely to be of substance.” It nevertheless concluded that the requirements for requesting pro bono counsel had not been met. The court therefore denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel, leaving open a future application if later developments warrant it.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the application at Docket 16 and mail Plaintiff a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.