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

Chukwuhdi v. The City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00673
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Allen Chukwuhdi v. The City of New York, Judge Swain denied without prejudice Chukwuhdi’s request for volunteer counsel during statutory screening.

Who this affects

Allen Chukwuhdi, also known as Allen C. Dawson, whose request for the court to seek volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; any appeal from this order cannot proceed without paying fees under the court’s ruling.

What happened

Allen Chukwuhdi, also known as Allen C. Dawson, sued The City of New York and asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. He is representing himself and is proceeding without paying filing fees.

The court said the case was still undergoing the required review for cases filed without paying fees. Because that review was not complete, the court said it was too early to decide whether to request a volunteer lawyer.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the application without prejudice, meaning Chukwuhdi may file another request if the case continues after the review. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chukwuhdi v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-00673
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 11, 2025

Background

Allen Chukwuhdi, also known as Allen C. Dawson, filed this action against The City of New York. He is representing himself and is proceeding without paying filing fees. He applied for the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The application was docketed as ECF 4.

Court’s analysis

Because Chukwuhdi is proceeding without paying filing fees, the action is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That review requires the court to determine, before summonses are issued, whether the action should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim, or because it seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief.

The court explained that requests for volunteer counsel are evaluated using factors including the apparent strength of the claims, the person’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without a lawyer. The strength of the claims receives the most attention. The court also explained that, under the federal statute, it cannot appoint a lawyer; it can only ask a lawyer to volunteer.

Ruling

The court denied Chukwuhdi’s application for the court to request volunteer counsel because the required statutory review was still underway and it was therefore too early to determine whether counsel should be requested. The denial was without prejudice to filing another application if the action proceeds after that review. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF 4.

The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free 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.