Werner v. New York City
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Werner v. New York City, Judge Swain denied Werner’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess its merits.
Bradley A. Werner, Jr.’s request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Werner v. New York City, Bradley A. Werner, Jr., who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer.
The court said it considers the case’s apparent strength, the person’s efforts to find a lawyer, and whether the person can investigate and present the case without help. The court gives the case’s apparent strength the most attention, but said it was too early to assess the merits here.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request without prejudice, meaning Werner may renew it later. The clerk was directed to close the motion, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Werner v. New York City · No. 1:25-cv-00939
- Laura Swain
- May 30, 2025
Background
Bradley A. Werner, Jr., who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that motions for appointed pro bono counsel are evaluated using factors that include:
- the apparent merits of the case; - the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer; and - the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and present the case without legal assistance.
The court stated that the merits of the case receive the most attention. It concluded that the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits.
Ruling
The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, identified as ECF 4.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal-related filing costs. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.