Dixon v. White
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-07883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Demark Dixon v. White et al., Judge Roman denied without prejudice Dixon’s request for appointed counsel because he had not shown independent efforts to find a lawyer.
Demark Dixon’s request for volunteer appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Demark Dixon v. White et al., Demark Dixon, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a free lawyer to represent him in this civil case.
The court explained that it may ask lawyers on its volunteer panel to represent an eligible self-represented litigant, but it first considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance. It also considers whether the person tried to find a lawyer independently and whether the case is too complex to handle without help.
The motion did not show that Dixon had unsuccessfully tried to obtain a lawyer on his own, and the court could not conclude at this early stage that his claims were likely to have merit. Judge Roman denied the motion without prejudice, allowing Dixon to renew it later.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. White · No. 7:25-cv-07883
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
Pro se Plaintiff Demark Dixon moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion was received on October 8, 2025, and was docketed as ECF No. 5. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against the defendants.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, it cannot require an attorney to represent a person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel to represent an eligible litigant.
The court applied standards requiring it to first consider whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, meaning some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the person tried to obtain representation independently, the factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether skilled cross-examination may be needed.
Court’s ruling
The court found that Dixon’s motion did not establish that he had unsuccessfully tried to obtain counsel independently. It also stated that, at this early stage, it could not conclude that his claims were likely to have merit, while noting that this assessment could change as the case progressed.
The court therefore DENIED without prejudice Dixon’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning the request could be renewed later. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 5 and serve Dixon with a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.