Murray v. Brag Sales Inc.

Background

Murray moved for pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. He had been granted permission to proceed without paying court fees. His complaint alleged that Defendants terminated his employment because of disability and race, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

In an earlier order, Judge J. Paul Oetken granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order allowed Murray’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law to continue. The opinion does not state that the New York City Human Rights Law claim also survived.

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 is not required to provide a lawyer and cannot compel one to accept the representation. Courts therefore request volunteer lawyers sparingly.

The court applied factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers. These include whether the claim appears likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a special reason makes counsel more likely to produce a fair result. The court also noted that it must evaluate each request based on the facts and may not automatically wait until after a dispositive motion—one that could resolve the case—before considering counsel.

Discussion

The court recognized that Murray’s claims had survived a motion to dismiss and that he had permission to proceed without paying court fees. But it found that he had not shown he would be unable to gather the facts or address the issues without a lawyer. The court cited the absence of information showing that the case would require substantial financial investigation or involve especially complex legal issues.

The court also considered Murray’s handling of discovery. Defendants had served initial disclosures, requests for documents, interrogatories, and a deposition notice. Despite multiple conferences, Murray had not answered the interrogatories. Although he said he responded to the document requests by referring to another filing, that filing contained only an after-visit summary from a New York City Health and Hospitals facility and did not adequately answer all the requests.

Murray did not explain what efforts he had made to obtain a lawyer beyond stating generally that he had called every lawyer in New York City and that they did not want to take his case. The court concluded that, at that stage, it was not apparent that volunteer counsel would make the case more efficient or lead to a fairer result.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Murray’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing it later in the proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54. The order did not dispose of the underlying employment-discrimination action.