DeLeon v. Johnson
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-08101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In DeLeon v. Johnson, Judge Karas denied without prejudice DeLeon’s request for appointed counsel in his civil-rights case.
Jonathan DeLeon’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; his underlying civil-rights claims were not decided by this order.
What happened
DeLeon v. Johnson concerns Jonathan DeLeon’s claim that corrections officers and other inmates physically and verbally abused him and that defendants failed to protect him. He brought the case under a federal civil-rights law and represented himself.
DeLeon asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer. He said he had contacted one unidentified law firm and had a learning disability, but he did not provide enough information showing that he had fully searched for a lawyer or that he needed one to investigate or present his claims.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the request without prejudice, meaning DeLeon may renew it with additional information about changed circumstances. The court did not decide whether his underlying abuse claims were valid.
The detailed version
- DeLeon v. Johnson · No. 7:24-cv-08101
- Kenneth Karas
- July 9, 2025
Background
Jonathan DeLeon, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from physical and verbal abuse by corrections officers and other inmates. DeLeon is proceeding without paying the filing fee under the court’s earlier authorization.
The order addresses DeLeon’s application for appointment of volunteer counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court explained that there is no automatic constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases, but a district court may appoint counsel for an indigent litigant in appropriate circumstances.
The Court’s Analysis
The court applied the two-step framework governing requests for appointed counsel. First, it considered whether DeLeon’s claims appeared likely to have some merit. The court stated that, even assuming this threshold was met, other factors weighed against appointing counsel.
The court found that DeLeon had not shown that he was unable to retain a lawyer. His application said only that he had written to an unidentified law firm about his injury and the corrections officers’ actions, completed a questionnaire, and received no response. The court found that this did not demonstrate that he had exhausted his search for counsel, including by contacting other attorneys, legal clinics, or nonprofit organizations.
The court also concluded that the practical factors did not support appointment. Because DeLeon’s claims concerned events he personally experienced, the court found that they did not appear to require outside investigation. It further found that DeLeon had not shown that his Eighth Amendment claims were unusually complex or that special circumstances required a lawyer. Although DeLeon cited a learning disability, he did not describe its nature or extent or provide supporting medical evidence showing that it prevented him from effectively presenting his case.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied DeLeon’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice. The order states that DeLeon may renew the request and provide additional information about changed circumstances supporting a new application.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending applications listed at docket entries 13 and 21 and mail DeLeon a copy of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of DeLeon’s underlying Eighth Amendment allegations.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.