Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2025

Partridge v. Authentic Brands Group LLC

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-08742
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Partridge v. Authentic Brands Group, Chief Judge Swain denied Partridge’s request for free counsel while the court reviewed his fee-waived lawsuit.

Who this affects

Nicholas Dennard Partridge’s request for volunteer counsel was denied, while the underlying action remained subject to statutory screening.

What happened

In Nicholas Dennard Partridge v. Authentic Brands Group LLC, et al., Nicholas Dennard Partridge, who is representing himself and did not pay the filing fee, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him.

The court said the lawsuit was still undergoing the required review for cases filed without paying the fee. Because it was too early to assess whether Partridge should receive volunteer counsel, the court did not decide his request on the merits of his claims.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for volunteer counsel, but stated that Partridge could file another request if the lawsuit proceeds after the required review. The court also directed the clerk to close the counsel request and denied fee-waived status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Partridge v. Authentic Brands Group LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08742
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 11, 2025

Background

Nicholas Dennard Partridge is proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He applied for the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The application was docketed as ECF 4.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that lawsuits filed without paying the filing fee must undergo statutory screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Before summonses are issued, the court must determine whether the action should be dismissed because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief.

In deciding whether to request volunteer counsel, courts consider the apparent strength of the claims, the litigant’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the litigant’s ability to collect facts and present the case without assistance. The court stated that the strength of the claims receives the most attention. It also explained that the statute does not give the court authority to appoint a lawyer; the court may only ask a lawyer to volunteer.

Because Partridge’s action was still undergoing statutory screening, the court said it was too early to decide whether to request volunteer counsel.

Ruling

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Partridge’s application for the court to request volunteer counsel. The denial was without prejudice to Partridge filing another application if the action proceeds after statutory screening. The court directed the clerk to terminate ECF 4.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.