Brown v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-02296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brown v. Annucci, Judge McCarthy denied Carl Brown’s request for appointed volunteer counsel, allowing renewal if circumstances change.
Carl Brown’s request for appointed volunteer counsel in his pending civil case was denied, subject to renewal if circumstances change.
What happened
Carl Brown, who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint volunteer counsel in his civil case against Anthony Annucci and others. He said he could not understand medical records and was experiencing retaliation related to his claims.
The court recognized that Brown cannot afford counsel and assumed for this request that his claims might have merit. But it found no meaningful change since his previous request, said the case was still in its early stages, and concluded that Brown had shown he could represent himself and that the issues he identified were not complex.
The court denied Brown’s application, allowing him to renew it if circumstances change. Judge Judith C. McCarthy also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and mail Brown a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-02296
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Carl Brown, proceeding without a lawyer, applied for appointment of volunteer counsel on August 27, 2025. He had made several earlier requests. The opinion states that prior requests were sometimes denied and that counsel previously appeared for the limited purpose of preparing and filing a Fourth Amended Complaint and a related motion. That limited representation ended when counsel filed a notice of completion on January 9, 2024.
Brown had permission to proceed without paying court fees, so the court found that he could not afford counsel. For purposes of this application, the court also assumed that Brown’s claims might have merit.
Reasons for the Decision
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. The court explained that it must first consider whether the person can afford counsel and whether the case and the person’s position appear likely to have substance. If those conditions are met, the court may consider additional factors, including the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would likely lead to a fairer result.
The court found no material change in Brown’s circumstances since his most recent application had been denied. It noted that discovery was not scheduled to finish until February 15, 2026, and that the parties had not yet filed summary-judgment motions. The court also found that Brown’s stated difficulty reading medical records and allegation of retaliation did not present complex issues. It observed that Brown had independently filed the complaint, amended complaints, fee-waiver request, current motion, earlier counsel applications, and other letters and motions.
Ruling
The court denied Brown’s application for appointment of volunteer counsel, with leave to renew if circumstances change. It requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the pending motion, docket number 303, and mail Brown a copy of the order. The opinion is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.