Illescas v. Annucci

Background

Silvo R. Illescas, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of pro bono counsel—meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him—under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The motion was received on October 31, 2025.

Legal standard

The court explained that, unlike in a criminal case, it cannot require an attorney to represent a person without a lawyer in a civil case. It may, however, use its discretion to ask the court’s pro bono panel to consider representing an eligible litigant.

Under Second Circuit standards, the court must first consider whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider whether the person tried to obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, how difficult the factual investigation and legal issues are, and whether skilled cross-examination is needed.

Ruling

The court found that Illescas’s motion did not establish that he had unsuccessfully tried to obtain a lawyer on his own. 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 progressed.

Judge Nelson S. Roman therefore denied Illescas’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 240 and mail Illescas a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.