Muflihi v. Rikers Island Employees
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-00395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Muflihi v. Rikers Island Employees, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Salman Muflihi’s renewed request for pro bono counsel limited to discovery.
Salman Muflihi, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without paying court fees, is to receive appointed pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of discovery.
What happened
In Muflihi v. Rikers Island Employees, Salman Muflihi, an incarcerated Muslim plaintiff proceeding without paying court fees, alleged that he was denied Ramadan meals and services at Rikers Island and threatened when asking about a grievance.
Muflihi had previously requested a lawyer for discovery, but the court denied that request because he had not explained his efforts to find one. He renewed the request after describing attempts to obtain referrals from other inmates and the facility law library.
The court found that Muflihi was unable to afford a lawyer, had made reasonable efforts to find one, and showed that at least part of his civil-rights claim had enough potential merit to justify assistance. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the request for counsel for the limited purpose of helping with discovery and directed the Pro Bono Administrator to appoint a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Muflihi v. Rikers Island Employees · No. 1:24-cv-00395
- Valerie Caproni
- July 7, 2025
Background
Salman Muflihi is incarcerated and proceeding without paying court fees. He alleges that, while detained at Rikers Island, he was denied Ramadan meals and services. He also alleges that he tried to file a grievance but was threatened with a disciplinary ticket whenever he asked about its status. The opinion says he asserted a claim under Section 1983 for violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Request for Counsel
Muflihi first requested a lawyer without charge for the limited purpose of discovery on April 23, 2025. The court denied that request without prejudice because he had not explained what steps he had taken to find an attorney. On June 26, 2025, he renewed the request. He said he had asked several fellow inmates for referrals but could not obtain the name of a lawyer willing to represent him. He also said the lawyers’ directory in the facility law library did not identify lawyers willing to take his civil case.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered the factors used when deciding whether to appoint pro bono counsel, including the person’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, whether counsel is available, the person’s ability to investigate facts and address legal issues without help, and the apparent merit of the case. The court explained that a plaintiff need not prove that the claims would survive dismissal or summary judgment, but must make a threshold showing that the claims have substance.
The court found that Muflihi was demonstrably indigent because he was proceeding without paying court fees. It also found that his efforts to obtain a lawyer and his incarceration supported appointment of counsel. Based on his allegations about Ramadan meals and services, the court concluded that at least some aspects of his Section 1983 claim were likely to have substance.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Muflihi’s application for appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of assisting with discovery. The court directed the Pro Bono Administrator to appoint counsel to represent him.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.