Cooke v. Orange & Rockland, Utilities, Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-05315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Cooke v. Orange & Rockland, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger granted Cooke’s request for volunteer counsel in three cases without deciding their merits.
Charmaine Cooke, who received an order directing the clerk to seek volunteer counsel in her two consolidated copyright cases and her separate disability-discrimination case. The defendants remain involved, and the cases’ existing deadlines generally remain in place.
What happened
In Cooke v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc., Charmaine Cooke asked for a volunteer lawyer in two consolidated copyright cases and a separate disability-discrimination case. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees, establishing that she could not afford counsel.
The court found that Cooke’s claims were likely to have substance, but it did not decide whether she would win. It also found that the other factors favored representation because a lawyer could help investigate the facts, clarify the issues, and present the cases.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request for the clerk to seek pro bono counsel for Cooke. The court warned that no lawyer was guaranteed to volunteer, and it kept the existing case deadlines in place, while denying fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cooke v. Orange & Rockland, Utilities, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05315
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
The order concerns three cases brought by Charmaine Cooke: two consolidated cases involving alleged copyright infringement and a separate case involving alleged disability discrimination. In the consolidated cases, Cooke alleged that the defendants infringed ideas in case studies she developed during her master’s degree program. In the separate case, she alleged that the defendant failed to accommodate disabilities, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety, and terminated her employment because of those disabilities.
Cooke requested permission to proceed without paying court fees, and the court granted that request. She then requested a lawyer to represent her. Motions to dismiss were pending in all three cases, and Cooke’s responses were due September 2, 2025.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court cannot force a lawyer to take the case or provide public funds to pay the lawyer. The court considered whether Cooke’s claims were likely to have substance and whether factors such as her ability to investigate the facts, the complexity of the legal issues, and the likely benefit of counsel favored representation.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Cooke’s claims were “likely to be of substance,” while expressly declining to express an opinion on their ultimate merits. It also found that the other relevant factors favored representation because counsel would help move the cases forward, sharpen the issues, and shape the presentation of evidence.
The court granted Cooke’s request for pro bono counsel for the limited purposes described in the order and directed the clerk to try to locate a volunteer lawyer. The court explained that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer and that a lengthy delay was possible. The cases would continue on their current schedule, and all deadlines would remain in place except as otherwise modified.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cooke permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Finally, it directed the clerk to terminate the listed motions in the three cases.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.