Auguste v. Women In Need

Background

Cherryl Auguste brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional, statutory, and common-law violations by Women In Need, Inc. (WIN), Dwayne Messam, and the City of New York. She alleged harassment, forced medical interventions that separated her from her children, and retaliation for complaints filed at the WIN-operated shelter where she and her children were placed. She asserted claims involving the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Auguste was proceeding without a lawyer. She had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees and later asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). She stated that she was financially unable to hire counsel.

Legal standard

A federal court may request—but may not compel or pay for—a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claims appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the likelihood that disputed evidence would require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result. The court emphasized that requests for volunteer counsel should be granted sparingly and decided based on the individual circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Auguste qualified financially because the court had granted her request to proceed without paying filing fees and nothing indicated that her financial status had changed. The court also found that certain claims were likely to have substance. It pointed to the detailed allegations in her complaint and noted that the defendants had answered instead of immediately moving to dismiss. The court stated that discovery would make the substance of the claims clearer; it did not decide the merits of those claims.

The court concluded that the remaining factors also favored requesting counsel. It found that Auguste’s indigence and mental-health issues might impede her ability to investigate important facts. It noted that the defendants contested her version of events, potentially making cross-examination important. The court also found that counsel would help present the case during discovery and address the complex constitutional, statutory, and common-law issues.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla GRANTED Auguste’s motion for the court to request pro bono counsel. The order clarified that the court had no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and relied on volunteers. It warned that a volunteer might not be found, that the case would continue at a normal pace, and that Auguste should be prepared to continue representing herself. If a lawyer volunteered, Auguste would decide whether to retain that lawyer.

The court separately DENIED Auguste’s motion for an emergency protective order. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIED fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at docket entries 19 and 21 and mail a copy of the order to Auguste.