Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Ricardo
- 1:25-cv-01670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. Commissioner, Judge Ricardo denied Travis Harris’s request for free counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess its merits.
Travis Harris’s request for free legal counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying Social Security case was not decided.
What happened
In Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security, Travis Harris asked the court on March 26, 2025, to request a lawyer to represent him for free.
The court said it considers the case’s likely strength, the person’s efforts to find a lawyer, and whether the person can gather facts and present the case without help. It explained that it was too early to evaluate the case’s strength.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied Harris’s request without prejudice, meaning the request may be renewed later. The clerk was directed to close the application. The court also informed Harris about a separate legal clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:25-cv-01670
- Ricardo
- Mar. 31, 2025
Request for Counsel
On March 26, 2025, Travis Harris filed an application asking the court to request free legal counsel. The opinion describes the factors considered for an indigent litigant’s request for counsel: the merits of the case, the applicant’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the applicant’s ability to collect facts and present the case without a lawyer. The court stated that the merits receive the most attention among these factors.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that the case was at too early a stage for it to assess the merits. Because the court could not yet evaluate that important factor, it did not grant the request for counsel.
Ruling
Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied the application for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The clerk was directed to terminate the application at ECF No. 13 as denied without prejudice.
Additional Information
The court informed Harris about the Pro Se Law Clinic operated by the City Bar Justice Center. The opinion states that the clinic is a private organization, not part of or operated by the court, and may provide advice to people representing themselves in civil cases. The court also explained that self-represented parties must continue to file documents through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.