Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-05731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, Judge Koeltl denied Saul Sabino’s request for appointed counsel after granting defendants summary judgment.
Saul Sabino, who requested appointed counsel, and the defendants, who had previously obtained summary judgment and judgment in their favor.
What happened
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, Saul Sabino, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer under the Criminal Justice Act. The court had already granted the defendants’ request for summary judgment and entered judgment for them.
Sabino said he had not received the court’s mail and therefore had not responded to the summary-judgment motion. The court said it had sent orders to his addresses, gave him additional time to respond, and concluded that he had been given ample opportunity but did not provide a meritorious opposition.
Judge Koeltl denied Sabino’s request for appointed counsel because the court had concluded that his claim had no merit. The clerk was directed to mail the order and the earlier judgment materials to Sabino’s updated address and record the mailing on the docket.
The detailed version
- Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department · No. 1:21-cv-05731
- John Koeltl
- May 19, 2025
Background
Saul Sabino, who was proceeding without a lawyer, requested appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act. The opinion refers to the defendants as the Port Authority Police Department and other defendants, but it does not describe the underlying claims.
The court had previously ordered Sabino to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by February 26, 2025, and sent that order to the address then listed for him. Sabino did not respond. On April 10, 2025, he updated his address and asked for more time. On April 14, 2025, the court directed him to respond by May 5, 2025, and mailed that order to his updated address and his parents’ address. Sabino again did not respond.
On May 7, 2025, the court treated the summary-judgment motion as unopposed, granted it, entered judgment for the defendants, and closed the case. Sabino later updated his address again and reported that he had not been receiving mail from the court.
Request for Appointed Counsel
The court explained that appointment of counsel requires a threshold showing that the plaintiff’s claim has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. If that showing is made, the court may also consider factors such as the plaintiff’s ability to obtain a lawyer independently, the plaintiff’s ability to handle the case without assistance, the need for factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for cross-examination.
Ruling
The court denied Sabino’s request for appointment of counsel because it had already concluded, in its summary-judgment decision, that his claim had no merit. The court stated that it had carefully considered the defendants’ motion, that Sabino had been given ample opportunity to respond, and that he had never provided a meritorious opposition.
The clerk was directed to mail this order and the earlier summary-judgment decision and judgment to Sabino at his updated address and to record that mailing on the docket. This opinion does not provide the reasoning from the earlier summary-judgment decision or otherwise explain the underlying claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.