Thompson v. Lemon
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-02102
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thompson v. Lemon, Magistrate Judge Parker directed the clerk to seek limited pro bono counsel for Thompson.
Kwaine Thompson, the City of New York, and any volunteer lawyer considered for the limited representation. The order directs the clerk to seek counsel for Thompson but does not appoint a specific lawyer or decide the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Thompson v. Lemon, the court directed the clerk to look for a volunteer lawyer to help Kwaine Thompson oppose the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. The lawyer’s work would be limited to that opposition.
The court relied on Thompson’s approved application to proceed without paying filing fees, which showed that he could not afford a lawyer. Without deciding the strength of his claims, the court found that at least some appeared likely to have substance. It also found that his incarceration made it harder for him to oppose the motion.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker stated that any volunteer lawyer would have no duties beyond the matters described in the order. If no lawyer volunteers, Thompson will represent himself. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the merits of Thompson’s claims.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Lemon · No. 1:23-cv-02102
- James Oetken
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Kwaine Thompson sued Lemon et al. The order concerns Defendant City of New York’s pending motion to dismiss. Thompson’s deadline to oppose that motion was May 5, 2025.
Legal standard
The court explained that, in a civil case, it may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Such requests should be made sparingly. The person must show financial need, and the court must find that the claims appear likely to have substance. The court may also consider the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would likely produce a fairer result.
Court’s analysis
The court found Thompson indigent because his application to proceed without paying filing fees had been granted on February 28, 2024. The court also found that at least some of his claims were likely to have substance, based only on the complaint and the court’s understanding from case-management conferences of the discovery produced. The court expressly stated that it was not making a substantive finding about the merits of those claims.
The court further found that Thompson’s incarceration hindered his ability to oppose the motion to dismiss. It concluded that representation would likely lead to a quicker and fairer result.
Order and scope of representation
The court directed the Clerk of Court to search for a volunteer lawyer to represent Thompson for the purpose of filing an opposition to the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. If a lawyer accepts, the lawyer must file a notice of limited appearance as pro bono counsel and contact Thompson directly.
The volunteer lawyer would not be responsible for matters outside the order’s described scope. Representation would end when counsel filed a notice of completion. The order also states that counsel may seek reimbursement from the court’s Pro Bono Fund for certain out-of-pocket expenses.
The court advised Thompson that no lawyer might volunteer, in which case he would represent himself. The court directed the clerk to mail him a copy of the order. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss or decide the merits of Thompson’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.