Dixon v. White
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-07883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Demark Dixon v. White, Judge Roman denied Dixon’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice because he had not shown independent efforts to find counsel or likely merit.
Demark Dixon’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Demark Dixon v. White et al., Demark Dixon, who is representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer in this civil case. The court explained that it may request a lawyer from its pro bono panel but generally cannot force an attorney to represent a civil litigant.
The court said Dixon had not shown that he tried to find a lawyer on his own without success. It also could not conclude at this early stage that his claims were likely to have merit, although that assessment could change as the case continues. The court noted that it had denied an earlier request for counsel less than a month before.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later in the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Dixon a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. White · No. 7:25-cv-07883
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
Demark Dixon, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion was received on November 3, 2025. The court had denied Dixon’s earlier motion for appointment of counsel less than one month before.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, it generally cannot require an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court has discretion to ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel.
Under Second Circuit standards, the court first considers whether the self-represented litigant’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the person tried independently to obtain representation, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for factual investigation, and the need for skilled cross-examination. The court noted that counsel is often unwarranted when the chances of success are extremely slim, even if the claim is not frivolous.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Dixon’s current motion did not establish that he had tried to obtain counsel independently and failed. The court also stated that, at this early stage, it could not conclude that Dixon’s claims were likely to have merit. It noted that this conclusion could change as the action progressed.
Disposition
The court denied Dixon’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. 20, mail Dixon a copy of the order at his address listed on the electronic docket, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.