Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2024

Calvin Reed v. P.O. Andre Logan

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-10446
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Reed v. Logan, Judge Moses denied Reed’s request for pro bono counsel because the case was still at an early stage.

Who this affects

Calvin Reed’s request for volunteer counsel was denied; the underlying civil claims were not decided in this order.

What happened

In Calvin Reed v. P.O. Andre Logan, Calvin Reed asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer to represent him in his civil case. The request was made while the case remained in the early stages of discovery.

The court noted that Reed had not answered the defendants’ written questions or served his own discovery requests. It also noted that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending, so the court could not yet determine whether Reed’s claims had enough substance to justify requesting volunteer counsel.

Judge Barbara Moses denied Reed’s request without prejudice to renewing it if he later makes a stronger showing on the merits. The clerk was directed to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Calvin Reed v. P.O. Andre Logan · No. 1:22-cv-10446
Judge
John Cronan
Date
July 8, 2024

Request and legal standard

Calvin Reed applied for the court to request pro bono counsel—a volunteer lawyer—to represent him. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request an attorney for a person unable to afford counsel, but civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a court-provided lawyer. The court has broad discretion, and volunteer counsel must be requested sparingly.

The court explained that it must consider factors including the apparent strength of Reed’s case, his ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to find a lawyer, whether counsel is available, and his ability to investigate and present the case without a lawyer. As a threshold matter, Reed had to show that his claims had substance or a likelihood of success.

Reason for denial

The court concluded that it was not yet in a position to determine whether Reed’s claims had substance. Although the case had been on the docket since 2022, the court found that it was still procedurally at an early stage because discovery had stalled. Specifically, Reed had not responded to the defendants’ interrogatories, or written questions, and had not served his own discovery requests. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was also pending.

Disposition

The court denied Reed’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renewal if Reed later makes a stronger showing on the merits. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 62.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.