Walker v. Co Grant-Hall
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-07638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jerard (Gerald) Walker v. Co Grant-Hall, Judge Briccetti granted Walker’s request for pro bono counsel to pursue his surviving excessive-force claim.
Jerard (Gerald) Walker is affected because the court directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for his surviving excessive-force claim. Co Grant-Hall remains the opposing defendant, and any volunteer lawyer would represent Walker for the remainder of the case if one agrees to do so.
What happened
In Jerard (Gerald) Walker v. Co Grant-Hall, Jerard (Gerald) Walker alleged under federal civil-rights law that Co Grant-Hall used excessive force by choking him during an incident at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. Walker had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and the court had previously granted summary judgment on his other claims.
The court found that Walker’s surviving excessive-force claim was likely substantial. It also found that the case involved difficult legal issues, that Walker’s incarceration created challenges in preparing and presenting the case, and that conflicting accounts could make witness questioning important at trial.
Judge Briccetti granted Walker’s request and directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer to represent him for the rest of the case. The order emphasized that no lawyer was guaranteed and that Walker might need to continue without counsel; it also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Walker v. Co Grant-Hall · No. 7:22-cv-07638
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
Jerard (Gerald) Walker brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He alleged that Co Grant-Hall used excessive force against him by choking him during an incident at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
The court had granted Walker permission to proceed without paying filing fees, finding that he qualified as unable to afford the fees. The court had also previously granted Co Grant-Hall’s motion for summary judgment on Walker’s other claims. The excessive-force claim remained pending.
Request for Counsel
At a telephone conference attended by Walker and defense counsel, Walker orally requested a volunteer lawyer. The court explained that in civil cases it may ask a lawyer to volunteer, but it cannot require a lawyer to represent a litigant or provide public funds to pay the lawyer.
Under the factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court first considered whether Walker’s surviving claim appeared likely to have substance. The court found that it did. It also found that the remaining factors supported requesting counsel because the case involved nuanced issues about whether the use of force was reasonable, Walker’s incarceration created meaningful difficulties in preparing and presenting the case, and the parties’ conflicting accounts could make credibility and cross-examination central at trial.
Ruling
The court granted Walker’s request for pro bono counsel. It directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer to enter an appearance for Walker for all purposes throughout the remainder of the case. Any lawyer who volunteers must file a notice of appearance.
The order stated that volunteer counsel could seek reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court’s Pro Bono Fund. It also stated that counsel’s representation would end when counsel filed a notice of completion and that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case. Walker was told to be prepared to proceed without an attorney.
The court scheduled the next case-management conference for November 4, 2025, and certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Walker permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.