Morrow v. Janis
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-03224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Neb Morrow v. Marc Janis, Judge Krause granted a request for volunteer counsel to help with limited depositions and settlement discussions.
Neb Morrow may receive a court request for volunteer counsel limited to certain depositions and settlement discussions, but no lawyer is guaranteed and the request does not cover the entire case.
What happened
In Neb Morrow v. Marc Janis, the court considered the plaintiff’s request for help from a volunteer lawyer. The plaintiff was already allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and the court noted that he is incarcerated and had tried at least once to find a lawyer.
The court granted the request. It will ask a volunteer lawyer to represent the plaintiff only for certain depositions and settlement discussions. The lawyer will not have to handle other parts of the case, including responding to a motion that could end the case, unless the court expands the lawyer’s role. The court warned that a volunteer may not be found and that the plaintiff might have to continue without a lawyer.
Judge Andrew E. Krause issued the November 7, 2025 order. The order granted the request for counsel but did not appoint a lawyer or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Morrow v. Janis · No. 7:23-cv-03224
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
Neb Morrow asked the court for help obtaining a volunteer lawyer. The court interpreted Morrow’s request about depositions at an October 3, 2025 status conference, together with a later discovery motion, as an application for the court to request pro bono counsel for limited purposes. Morrow had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees on July 17, 2023. The opinion also states that Morrow is incarcerated and had made at least one prior attempt to obtain counsel.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a lawyer represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, the court is not required to provide a lawyer and cannot appoint one to serve involuntarily; it can only ask a lawyer to volunteer. The court applied factors including whether the claim appears to have some likelihood of merit, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the issues, the need for cross-examination, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court construed Morrow’s complaint liberally and assumed that it met the initial requirement of having some likelihood of merit. The court also found that the other factors favored requesting counsel. In particular, Morrow’s incarceration would make it difficult for him to conduct depositions effectively, and legal representation could make the discovery process faster and fairer. The court also considered Morrow’s prior effort to obtain counsel.
Ruling and scope of representation
The court GRANTED Morrow’s application for the court to request counsel. The requested volunteer lawyer’s role is limited to conducting certain depositions and participating in settlement discussions. The lawyer is not required to handle other aspects of the case or respond to a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the case or claims. If such a motion is filed, counsel may ask for an extension of time or for the court to expand the lawyer’s role. Unless the role is expanded, the representation will end after discovery is completed.
The court emphasized that there is no public funding to retain civil-case counsel and that representation depends on a volunteer accepting the matter. The order does not guarantee that a lawyer will volunteer, and it does not decide the merits of Morrow’s claims. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Morrow.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.