Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman, Judge Roman denied Vann’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Kouriockein Vann’s request for appointed volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice, so he may renew the request later in the proceedings. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman, Kouriockein Vann asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent him in the civil case.
The court said the case was still at an early stage: the parties had not begun exchanging evidence or filed summary-judgment motions. It could not yet conclude that Vann was unable to handle the case without help, that his claims had a strong chance of success, or that the legal issues were especially difficult.
The court denied Vann’s motion without prejudice, allowing him to renew the request later as the case develops. Judge Nelson S. Roman also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Vann a copy of the order and record proof of service.
The detailed version
- Vann v. Wolfe-Friedman · No. 7:23-cv-00236
- Nelson Roman
- May 1, 2025
Request
Kouriockein Vann applied for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. The motion concerned representation in Vann’s civil action against Dr. Janice Wolfe-Friedman, Dr. Mikail Gusman, and Dr. Yelena Korobkova.
Legal standard
The court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent people without lawyers in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel. Before appointing counsel, the court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider factors such as whether the person can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, the factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for skilled cross-examination.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the proceedings were still in their early stages. The parties had not yet entered discovery, meaning the formal process of obtaining evidence from one another, and had not filed motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over important facts. Because of the case’s early stage, the court could not conclude that Vann was unable to proceed without assistance. The court also could not determine that Vann’s position showed a strong chance of success, and it found that the legal issues were not particularly complex.
Disposition
The court denied Vann’s motion without prejudice to renewing it at a later stage of the proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Vann a copy of the order at the address listed in the electronic docket and to show proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.