Illescas v. Annuccli
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Illescas v. Annuccli, Judge Roman denied Silvo R. Illescas’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, allowing renewal later.
Silvo R. Illescas’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not identify any other person whose rights were decided.
What happened
In Silvo R. Illescas v. Annuccli, et al., Silvo R. Illescas asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent him in this civil case. The motion was received on October 24, 2025.
The court explained that appointment of counsel is discretionary in civil cases. It must first consider whether the person’s claims appear likely to have merit, along with factors such as whether the person tried to find a lawyer independently and whether the case is too difficult to handle without legal help.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion without prejudice to renewal later in the case. The court said Illescas had not shown that he unsuccessfully tried to find a lawyer and that, at this early stage, it could not conclude that his claims were likely to succeed.
The detailed version
- Illescas v. Annuccli · No. 7:21-cv-08473
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Silvo R. Illescas, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion was received on October 24, 2025, and was filed as ECF No. 236. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in a criminal case, it cannot require an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel.
The court applied the standards established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. First, it considers 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 can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance given the factual investigation and legal complexity required, and whether expert questioning of witnesses may be needed.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Illescas’s motion did not establish that he had tried unsuccessfully to obtain counsel independently. The court also stated that, at this early stage, it could not conclude that his claims were likely to have merit, while recognizing that this assessment could change as the case progresses.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Illescas’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 236 and to serve the order on Illescas at the address listed on the electronic docket, recording that service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.