Terez v. Kambouris

Background

Jah’rel Terez filed a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that New York City police officers violated his constitutional rights. The court had granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he qualified as unable to afford counsel.

Terez applied for the court to request a volunteer lawyer. The court explained that in a civil case it may ask an attorney to volunteer but cannot require an attorney to represent the person or pay the attorney’s fees. It applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claim appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would promote a fair result.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Terez’s claim was “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other relevant factors favored requesting counsel. In particular, the court concluded that counsel could significantly improve the chance of resolving the case without a trial by clarifying the issues and conducting questioning.

Because of the case’s stage, the court limited the requested representation primarily to a settlement conference scheduled for May 12, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The court directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel, and directed the pro se office to contact David White at Rutgers University School of Law to ask whether he and his students would represent Terez at that conference.

Order and Scope of Representation

The court granted in part Terez’s application for the court to request counsel. The order states that volunteer counsel would not be required to handle matters beyond the specified scope, including responding to a dispositive motion. Counsel could ask for an extension of Terez’s response time or request an expansion of the representation if defendants filed such a motion. Without an expanded role, the representation would end upon completion of discovery. A Notice of Completion would terminate counsel’s obligations to Terez and the court.

The court warned that finding volunteer counsel could take time and was not guaranteed. It stated that Terez should be prepared to continue representing himself if no volunteer accepted the case. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Terez permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.