Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:25-cv-00402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Panton v. Urban Home Ownership, Judge Aaron denied Panton’s requests for appointed counsel without prejudice because the record did not show likely merit.
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Panton, whose two applications for appointment of counsel were denied without prejudice; the order does not otherwise rule on the defendants.
What happened
Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation concerns pro se Plaintiff Robert Panton’s May 2 and May 6, 2025 applications asking the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil case.
The court explained that it cannot pay lawyers in civil cases or require a lawyer to work without pay. Before considering other factors, a plaintiff must first show some likelihood that the claims have merit. The court found that the current record did not show that Panton’s claims were substantial or that he was likely to succeed.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied both applications without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the docket entries for the applications and mail Panton a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Panton v. Urban Home Ownership Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-00402
- Stewart Aaron
- May 12, 2025
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Panton moved for appointment of counsel through applications filed May 2 and May 6, 2025, listed as ECF Nos. 27 and 28. The order addresses only those applications.
Legal standard
The court stated that it does not have a budget to pay appointed counsel in civil cases and cannot require a lawyer to serve without pay. Because volunteer attorney time is limited, courts should not grant requests for appointed counsel indiscriminately. Under the standard cited by the court, a plaintiff must first make a threshold showing of some likelihood of merit. Only after that showing can the court consider additional factors, including the plaintiff’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would more likely produce a fair result.
Ruling
The court denied Panton’s applications for appointment of counsel without prejudice because, based on the record then before it, the court could not determine that his claims were substantial or that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The order suggested that Panton work with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit for additional help and continue seeking private counsel. The clerk was directed to close ECF Nos. 27 and 28 and mail Panton a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.