Davidson v. Office of Court Administration
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-08936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Judge Figueredo denied Ronald Davidson’s request for pro bono counsel to pursue an interlocutory appeal.
Ronald Davidson’s request for volunteer counsel was denied. The opinion states that the defendants had not yet responded to the complaint.
What happened
In Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Ronald Davidson asked the court to appoint volunteer counsel to help him file an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal taken before the case is finished. The opinion states that the court had previously appointed volunteer counsel to help him file a second amended complaint.
Davidson did not identify the order he wanted to appeal. The court explained that early appeals are strongly disfavored and that the case had not progressed beyond its initial stages because the defendants had not yet responded to the complaint.
The court denied the motion because no order had been issued that could support an interlocutory appeal. Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 79.
The detailed version
- Davidson v. Office of Court Administration · No. 1:22-cv-08936
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Ronald Davidson moved for appointment of pro bono counsel to assist him with filing an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the district-court case has reached a final judgment. The opinion states that the court had previously appointed pro bono counsel to assist Davidson in filing a second amended complaint.
Court’s Analysis
Davidson did not identify the order he intended to appeal. The court explained that interlocutory appeals are strongly disfavored and are reserved for exceptional cases, especially at the early stages of litigation. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify an interlocutory order for appellate review when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.
The court found that no such order had been issued. It also noted that the case had not proceeded beyond its initial stages because the defendants had not yet responded to the complaint. The court therefore concluded that Davidson had no basis for taking an interlocutory appeal and no basis for appointing pro bono counsel for that purpose.
Disposition
The court denied Davidson’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 79. The opinion does not state that the case itself was dismissed or otherwise terminated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.