Moore v. County of Westchester
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11547
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Jordan H. Moore v. County of Westchester, Judge Roman denied Moore’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case had not developed enough.
Jordan H. Moore’s request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied, but he may renew the request at a later stage if he shows good cause.
What happened
Jordan H. Moore, who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint a free lawyer. He said he was indigent, imprisoned, and had limited access to the correctional facility’s law library.
The court said appointment of counsel in a civil case is discretionary. It found that the case had not developed significantly, discovery was incomplete, and the record did not show a strong chance of success or unusually complex legal issues.
Judge Roman denied the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. The court cautioned Moore to wait until the litigation develops substantially and to show good cause in any later request.
The detailed version
- Moore v. County of Westchester · No. 7:18-cv-11547
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
Jordan H. Moore, a self-represented plaintiff, asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel—a lawyer to represent him without charging him—through a letter motion dated October 10, 2025. Moore stated that he was indigent and that his imprisonment and limited access to the correctional facility’s law library significantly restricted his ability to litigate the case. The opinion also notes that Moore had made earlier requests for pro bono counsel.
Legal standard
The court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent indigent people in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, it may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer lawyer from the court’s pro bono panel. The court must first decide whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If it does, the court may then consider factors such as the person’s ability to find a lawyer independently, handle the case without assistance, investigate the facts, address legal complexity, and conduct cross-examination.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the litigation had not developed significantly. It stated that the case had been pending since December 10, 2018, that discovery was not complete, and that there was no indication that Moore’s position had a strong chance of success or that the legal issues were particularly complex. The court also could not conclude that Moore was unable to handle the case without assistance, although it said that this could change as the case progressed.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Moore’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The court cautioned Moore to wait until the litigation had developed substantially and said that any renewed application must demonstrate good cause rather than merely repeat a standard request. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 101 and mail Moore a copy of the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.