Salley v. Capra
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-04566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Salley v. Capra, Judge Karas denied Salley’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because he did not document efforts to find a lawyer.
Sean Salley’s requests for appointed counsel were denied without prejudice. The underlying retaliation and Section 1983 conspiracy claims were not decided by this order, and Salley may renew his request for counsel under the conditions stated by the court.
What happened
Sean Salley, who is incarcerated, sued Michael Capra and other state officers and employees, claiming they transferred him in retaliation for grievances about prison conditions. Salley asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him.
The court found that Salley’s claims appeared to have some chance of success, including his retaliation and conspiracy claims. But the court said he had not shown that he made reasonably diligent efforts to obtain a lawyer himself or provided evidence of those efforts.
Judge Karas denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice. Salley may renew the request if his circumstances materially change and he provides more information about his efforts to obtain counsel.
The detailed version
- Salley v. Capra · No. 7:23-cv-04566
- Kenneth Karas
- Oct. 29, 2025
Background
Sean Salley, who is incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, sued Michael Capra and several state officers and employees in their individual and official capacities. Salley alleges that officials transferred him from Sing Sing Correctional Facility to his current prison in retaliation for conduct protected by the First Amendment. He filed three requests for appointed counsel, at Docket Nos. 60, 62, and 67.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint counsel for an indigent person in a civil case, but there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in ordinary civil cases. The court first considers whether the claims appear to have some likelihood of merit. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, present the case, and handle the legal issues. Before those factors are considered, however, the person must show an inability to obtain counsel independently.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Salley met the threshold showing of some likelihood of merit. In a prior related proceeding, the court had found that Salley adequately alleged protected grievances about prison conditions, an adverse transfer, and a connection between his grievances and the transfer. The court had also found that he plausibly alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the defendants conspired against him.
The court nevertheless found that Salley had not shown that he was unable to obtain counsel on his own. Although one application said that he had taken several steps to find a lawyer, the applications did not say whether he had contacted law firms or sought help from relevant legal-aid programs. The court required information showing that his efforts were reasonably diligent and evidence of those efforts. Because Salley had not made that showing, the court did not consider the remaining factors for appointing counsel.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Salley’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice. The court stated that Salley may renew the request and provide more information about his circumstances if they materially change, along with a more detailed description of his efforts to obtain counsel. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Salley and terminate the pending motions at Docket Nos. 60, 62, and 67.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.