Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2025

White v. Distrokid

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:22-cv-02205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In White v. Distrokid, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted Eunice Rivers’s request for volunteer counsel but left deadlines in effect.

Who this affects

Eunice Rivers, who was granted a request for the court to seek volunteer counsel; the clerk was directed to seek a lawyer for her, while the case schedule remained in effect.

What happened

In White v. Distrokid, Eunice Rivers asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer. The court found that she did not appear able to afford an attorney and that the case could involve complex factual and legal issues.

The court granted the request and directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer to represent Rivers in all remaining proceedings. The court warned that a lawyer might not be found and that the process could take time. Until then, Rivers would continue representing herself, and all deadlines would remain in effect, including a telephone conference scheduled for May 6, 2025.

United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on March 6, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
White v. Distrokid · No. 1:22-cv-02205
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Mar. 6, 2025

Background

The court reviewed Eunice Rivers’s application asking the court to seek volunteer counsel for her. The opinion states that Rivers did not appear able to afford an attorney and that the case could involve complex factual and legal issues. The court considered the standard described in Hodge v. Police Officers.

Ruling

The court granted Rivers’s application. It directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer willing to enter an appearance and represent Rivers in all remaining proceedings.

The court explained that obtaining a volunteer lawyer was not guaranteed and could take a substantial amount of time. Until counsel was obtained, Rivers would continue representing herself. The court stated that all deadlines remained in effect and that the telephone conference scheduled for May 6, 2025, would proceed even if Rivers did not have a lawyer by then.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.