Brown v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-02296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Brown v. Annucci: Judge Roman denied Brown’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was still in its early stages.
Carl Brown’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied for now, but the court allowed him to renew the request later.
What happened
In Brown v. Annucci, Carl Brown, who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent him in this civil case.
The court said the case was still early: discovery had not begun, and the parties had not filed motions for summary judgment. It could not yet conclude that Brown was unable to handle the case himself, that his position had a strong chance of success, or that the legal issues were especially complex.
Judge Nelson S. Román denied Brown’s motion without prejudice, meaning Brown may renew the request later as the case develops. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Brown a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-02296
- Nelson Roman
- July 14, 2025
Background
Carl Brown, who was representing himself, applied for appointment of pro bono counsel—an attorney who would represent him without charging him—for this civil case. His application was dated June 30, 2025.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, it generally cannot require an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel.
Before doing so, the court must first determine whether the self-represented person’s position appears likely to have substance, or at least some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the person can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, the need for factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for effective cross-examination.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the proceedings were still in their early stages. The parties had not yet entered discovery or filed summary-judgment motions. As a result, the court could not conclude that Brown was unable to handle the case without assistance. The court also could not determine that Brown’s position showed a strong chance of success, and it found that the legal issues were not particularly complex.
Disposition
The court denied Brown’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 292, mail Brown a copy of the order at the address listed on the electronic docket, and record proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.