Herbert v. SanFeliz
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-04299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Herbert v. SanFeliz, Judge Karas denied Herbert’s request for pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renewal if circumstances materially change.
Jeremiah Folsom Herbert’s request for volunteer counsel was denied, while his underlying action against Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox remained subject to later proceedings.
What happened
In Herbert v. SanFeliz, Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, who is representing himself, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for his civil-rights case. His claims include allegations about an arrest, searches, force, medical care, and related conduct.
The court assumed for this request that Herbert’s claims had some likelihood of merit and recognized that he was unable to afford counsel. But it found that he personally witnessed the key events, had shown he could present his case, and had not shown that his limited legal knowledge, limited law-library access, or efforts to contact three lawyers justified requesting counsel.
Judge Karas denied the application without prejudice to renewal later if circumstances materially change. The order decided only the request for counsel and did not resolve whether Herbert’s underlying claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. SanFeliz · No. 7:22-cv-04299
- Kenneth Karas
- July 7, 2025
Background
Jeremiah Folsom Herbert is proceeding without a lawyer in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox. The opinion states that Herbert alleges excessive force, invasion of bodily privacy, failure to train, negligence, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and unlawful searches. Before the court was Herbert’s application for assignment of volunteer legal counsel.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot compel or pay for—an attorney to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. Those factors include whether the litigant is indigent, whether the claims appear likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and the litigant’s efforts to obtain counsel.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Herbert satisfied the indigency requirement because it had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees. For purposes of the counsel application, the court also assumed that his claims had “some likelihood of merit.”
The court nevertheless concluded that the remaining factors did not support requesting counsel. Herbert’s core allegations concerned events that occurred in his presence, giving him personal knowledge of the relevant facts. The court found that a lawyer therefore was unlikely to add significantly to the investigation. It also held that Herbert’s general statements about limited legal knowledge and limited access to a law library did not justify counsel.
The court further found that the claims were not too complex for Herbert to handle at that stage. It pointed to his amended pleadings, responses to motions, letters to the court, and requests for extensions as evidence that he could proceed without a lawyer. Herbert stated that he had written to three lawyers, which the court considered a minimal effort to obtain counsel, but not an exhaustive effort and not enough to overcome the other factors.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Herbert’s application without prejudice to renewal at later phases of the action if circumstances materially change. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 97 and mail Herbert a copy of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Herbert’s underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.