Ruiz v. King

Background

Jasmine Marie Ruiz alleges that her constitutional rights were violated when a City of New York corrections officer at Riker’s Island sexually assaulted her during a body-cavity search. Ruiz, who was formerly incarcerated, filed the complaint on July 26, 2024. The defendant answered on February 27, 2025, and the case was in early discovery when this order was issued.

Ruiz had requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court had granted that request. The court therefore found that she was indigent, meaning unable to afford counsel. The order also identifies Ruiz as representing herself.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court cannot require a lawyer to take the case or pay the lawyer’s fees. The court may only request volunteer representation.

The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claims appear likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the likelihood that conflicting evidence will require questioning witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a lawyer would help produce a fairer result. The court stated that these factors must be evaluated based on the facts of each case.

Court’s reasoning

The court expressly did not decide the ultimate merits of Ruiz’s claims. It found, however, that the claims were “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other factors favored volunteer counsel because a lawyer would help move the case forward, clarify the issues, and shape the questioning of witnesses.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel—an attorney volunteering to represent Ruiz—for the purposes described in the order. The court warned that there might be a lengthy delay because volunteer lawyers are scarce, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that the existing schedule and deadlines would remain in place unless modified.

The order did not appoint a lawyer or decide whether Ruiz will ultimately prevail. It also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Effect on the parties

Ruiz may be contacted directly if a volunteer lawyer agrees to represent her, but the case continues under its current schedule in the meantime. The defendant remains subject to the ongoing case and discovery. The opinion does not state that counsel was ultimately found.