The Board of Managers of the Diocesan Missionary Society of the Protestant…
The Board of Managers of the Diocesan Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York v. Colonnelli Brothers, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-01879
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
The Board of Managers v. Colonnelli Brothers: Judge Karas denied McCartney’s request for free counsel without prejudice because he did not show financial need.
Charles McCartney’s request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice because he did not provide evidence of financial need. The order did not decide the plaintiff’s underlying claims.
What happened
The Board of Managers of the Diocesan Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York sued Colonnelli Brothers, Inc., others, and Charles McCartney over alleged contamination at the plaintiff’s property. McCartney asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer for him, saying he could not afford representation.
The court said a person seeking a volunteer lawyer in a civil case must first provide evidence of financial need. Although McCartney’s application said he had attached a financial statement, no such statement was filed, and he gave no information about his income, savings, or assets. The court therefore did not consider the other factors for requesting counsel.
Judge Karas denied McCartney’s application without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The order did not decide the underlying contamination claims.
The detailed version
- The Board of Managers of the Diocesan Missionary Society of the Protestant… · No. 7:25-cv-01879
- Kenneth Karas
- July 2, 2025
Background
The Board of Managers of the Diocesan Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York brought claims against Colonnelli Brothers, Inc., other defendants, and Charles McCartney. The claims seek recovery under federal environmental and declaratory-judgment statutes for equitable indemnity and restitution, as well as claims for trespass, nuisance, and costs related to contamination at the plaintiff’s property.
McCartney was served with the complaint and received an extension of time to answer. Instead of filing an answer, he applied for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer. He said he was financially unable to obtain representation, relied primarily on Social Security benefits, was retired, worked part time performing manual labor, and could not afford attorneys who had requested $25,000.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—not require—an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court has broad discretion, and volunteer counsel must be requested sparingly. Under the factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers, the applicant must first show indigence, meaning inability to afford counsel. The court may then consider whether the claims appear likely to have substance and factors such as the applicant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and efforts to obtain counsel.
Court’s analysis
The court held that McCartney did not meet the threshold requirement of showing indigence. His application stated that he was attaching an original application to proceed without paying filing fees showing his financial status, but no such application was attached or filed. McCartney also provided no information about his income, savings, or assets and no other evidence of financial need.
Because McCartney had not shown that he met the threshold requirements, the court did not address the remaining factors for requesting volunteer counsel.
Disposition
The court denied McCartney’s application without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 34. The order did not resolve the underlying claims concerning contamination, indemnity, restitution, trespass, nuisance, or costs.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.