Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-00897
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General: Judge Ramos denied Szlosek’s third request for an appointed lawyer without prejudice because her claims did not yet appear likely meritorious.
Donna E. Szlosek’s request for a court-appointed volunteer lawyer was denied, while the underlying case against the NYS Office of the Attorney General was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General, Donna E. Szlosek asked for a court-appointed volunteer lawyer for the third time in her case.
The court said it must first consider whether her claims appeared likely to have substance, and then consider whether she could handle the case without a lawyer. At this stage, the court could not conclude that her claims were likely to have merit.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request without prejudice, meaning Szlosek may renew it later as the case develops. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General · No. 1:24-cv-00897
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 20, 2025
Background
On February 14, 2025, Donna E. Szlosek filed her third application asking the court to appoint pro bono counsel—an attorney who represents a person without charging that person—for this action. The application was docketed as Document 36. The court had addressed similar requests in orders dated June 26, 2024, and at another earlier stage, identified as Documents 18 and 26.
Legal standard
The court explained that, when deciding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, it considers the apparent merits of the case and the person’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court must first decide whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. Only if that threshold is met does it consider additional factors, including the person’s ability to handle the case without a lawyer.
Ruling
The court stated that, at this stage, it remained unable to conclude that Szlosek’s claims were likely to have merit, although that assessment could change as the litigation progressed. For the same reasons given in the earlier orders, Judge Edgardo Ramos denied without prejudice Szlosek’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. “Without prejudice” means the order does not bar a later request. The clerk was directed to terminate Document 36. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.