McFadden v. Keyser
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McFadden v. Keyser, Judge Roman denied requests for a teleconference and pro bono counsel, extended the amendment deadline, and allowed an existing answer to stand if needed.
Robert McFadden’s case schedule and access to requested assistance were affected. He received an extension until September 30, 2025, but did not receive a teleconference or appointed pro bono counsel at this time. The defendants were directed to respond by October 21, 2025, and their August 18, 2025 answer would stand if McFadden failed to file an amended complaint on time.
What happened
In McFadden v. Keyser, Robert McFadden, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued prison-related defendants over events allegedly occurring from 2019 through 2022. The case includes claims under a civil-rights law and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
McFadden asked for a teleconference and for a volunteer lawyer. The court denied the teleconference request without prejudice, but extended the deadline to file an amended complaint to September 30, 2025. It also said the defendants’ answer filed on August 18, 2025, would stand if McFadden did not file an amended complaint on time. The court denied the request for a volunteer lawyer for the third time without prejudice.
Judge Nelson S. Roman ruled that the case was still at an early stage, that discovery and summary-judgment motions had not begun, and that the court could not yet determine that McFadden could not handle the case himself or that his claims had a strong chance of success. The court said he could renew the lawyer request later.
The detailed version
- McFadden v. Keyser · No. 7:23-cv-00802
- Nelson Roman
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Robert McFadden brought this case while incarcerated and representing himself. He sued the listed prison-related defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain violations of federal rights by state actors, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. His claims concern events allegedly occurring at Sullivan Correctional Facility between 2019 and 2022.
In an earlier order dated March 18, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court allowed McFadden to file an amended complaint by May 5, 2025, and later extended that deadline to July 28, 2025. McFadden did not timely file an amended complaint or request another extension before the requests addressed in this order. The defendants filed an answer on August 18, 2025.
Requests and Rulings
McFadden asked for a teleconference, partly to discuss his stated difficulties accessing mail and the law library while incarcerated. The court denied without prejudice that request. At the same time, the court extended the deadline for McFadden to file an amended complaint to September 30, 2025. The defendants were directed to answer, seek permission to file a dismissal motion, or otherwise respond by October 21, 2025. The court stated that if McFadden did not timely file an amended complaint, the defendants’ August 18 answer would stand.
McFadden also requested appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer. The court denied, for a third time without prejudice, that request. The court explained that it may ask its pro bono panel to consider representing an indigent person in a civil case, but it cannot require an attorney to represent that person.
Reasoning
The court applied standards requiring an initial assessment of whether the self-represented litigant’s position appears likely to have substance, followed by consideration of factors such as the person’s ability to obtain representation, the complexity of the legal issues, the investigation required, and the need for cross-examination.
The court concluded that the case remained in its early stages, with no discovery or summary-judgment motions. It could not conclude that McFadden was unable to handle the case without assistance. It also could not yet determine that his position showed a strong chance of success, and it did not view the legal issues as particularly complex. The court therefore denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later in the case.
Disposition
The court denied the teleconference request without prejudice, granted an extension until September 30, 2025, and denied, for a third time without prejudice, the request for pro bono counsel. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.