Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent…
Jeremy Zielinski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc., et al.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jeremy Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers, Judge Swain denied without prejudice Zielinski’s request for pro bono counsel during review of his case.
Jeremy Zielinski’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of his underlying civil claims.
What happened
Jeremy Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc., et al. concerns Zielinski’s request for a volunteer lawyer in his civil case. He is incarcerated, has no lawyer, and is proceeding without paying the filing fee.
The court said the case was still undergoing the required review for cases filed without paying the filing fee. That review had to occur before summonses were issued and could lead to dismissal if the case was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or sought money from a legally protected defendant.
Judge Swain denied Zielinski’s application for pro bono counsel because it was too early to assess whether counsel should be requested. The denial was without prejudice, so Zielinski may file another counsel application if the case proceeds after the required review. The court also terminated the application and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Zielinski v. New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent… · No. 1:25-cv-01776
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 11, 2025
Background
Jeremy Zielinski, who the opinion says is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, filed an application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. He appeared without a lawyer and was proceeding without paying the filing fee under the federal statute governing indigent litigants. The application was docketed as ECF 5.
Issue
The issue was whether the court should request pro bono counsel—meaning a lawyer who would volunteer to represent Zielinski—at that point in the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that the action was still undergoing the required review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Before issuing summonses, the court must review a case filed without payment of the filing fee and determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim, or because it seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief.
The court also stated that requests for counsel are evaluated mainly by considering the apparent strength of the claims, along with the applicant’s efforts to obtain a lawyer and ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. Because the required statutory review had not yet been completed, the court said it was too early to determine whether requesting pro bono counsel was appropriate.
Disposition
The court denied Zielinski’s application for a request for pro bono counsel. The denial was without prejudice to filing another application if the action proceeds after the statutory review. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF 5. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.