Mathew v. New York City Department of Education
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-08727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mathew v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Woods granted limited counsel assistance for mediation but denied fee-free appeal status.
Susy Mathew, who sought volunteer counsel for mediation; the New York City Department of Education and the other defendants are parties to the underlying dispute.
What happened
In Susy Mathew v. New York City Department of Education, et al., Mathew asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent her at mediation of the dispute.
The court granted her request for the limited purpose of representation at the anticipated mediation. A volunteer lawyer is not guaranteed, and Mathew was told to be prepared to participate without a lawyer. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order on March 31, 2025.
The detailed version
- Mathew v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-08727
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
During a March 28, 2025 conference, Susy Mathew asked the court to request volunteer counsel to represent her in mediation of the dispute. The opinion cites a federal statute allowing a court to request an attorney to represent someone who cannot afford counsel. It also explains that courts generally grant such requests sparingly because volunteer lawyers are limited.
Ruling
The court granted Mathew’s application for the court to request counsel for the limited purpose of representing her in the anticipated mediation. The order states that a volunteer attorney will contact Mathew directly if one agrees to help, but that no attorney is guaranteed to accept the matter. Mathew remains free to decide whether to retain a volunteer attorney who offers to represent her, and she was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.