Rich v. State of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-03835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rich v. State of New York, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied Rich’s request for appointed counsel but explained notarization and discovery-extension procedures.
Benjamin Samuel Rich, the pro se plaintiff, particularly his request for volunteer counsel and his handling of notarization, discovery, and address filings.
What happened
In Rich v. State of New York, the pro se plaintiff asked the court to request counsel for him. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court said the papers did not currently show that the claims were likely substantial enough to justify seeking volunteer counsel, given the limited number of available volunteer lawyers. It also said the case did not appear so difficult that the plaintiff could not address relevant facts or expected issues. The court noted that attorney’s fees are available for claims like the plaintiff’s, which can help attract counsel in meritorious cases.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied the request for counsel. He said the court could seek counsel without another request if later review shows that appointment is warranted, and explained that notarization is not required and that a discovery extension may be requested for good cause.
The detailed version
- Rich v. State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-03835
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 4, 2024
Background
Benjamin Samuel Rich, who was proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to request counsel on his behalf. The court evaluated the request under the factors identified in Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co. The order concerns the request for counsel and does not resolve the underlying claims.
Reasoning
The court found that Rich’s application and the other papers filed in the action did not, at that time, demonstrate that his claim was likely to be substantial enough to justify seeking volunteer counsel, particularly because the court had an extremely limited number of volunteer lawyers available. The court also found that the case was not so difficult that Rich would be unable to address relevant facts or deal with other issues that might arise. It noted that attorney’s fees are available for claims like Rich’s, which provides a potential way for lawyers to be obtained in meritorious cases.
The court stated that it could seek appointment of counsel without another request from Rich if later review showed that appointment was warranted. The order also explained that federal practice does not require documents to be notarized. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, a person may instead sign a statement containing the required declaration under penalty of perjury. The court further stated that Rich could request additional time for discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) by showing good cause, and suggested that he consult defendants’ counsel about their position if possible. Finally, the court reminded Rich that he must file a notice of change of address if he wants mail sent somewhere other than the residential address listed on the docket.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Rich’s request for the court to request counsel. The order did not state that the request was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.