Illescas v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08473
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Illescas v. Annucci, Judge Roman denied without prejudice Silvo R. Illescas’s request for appointed pro bono counsel.
Silvo R. Illescas, who sought appointment of pro bono counsel; the ruling does not decide the merits of his claims or the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Silvo R. Illescas v. Annucci et al., Silvo R. Illescas, who is representing himself, again asked the court to appoint a free lawyer. The request came while the defendants’ motion to dismiss his Third Amended Complaint was pending.
The court said it could not yet determine whether Illescas’s claims were likely to have merit because the case was still at an early stage and the parties had only recently submitted papers on the motion to dismiss. The court also noted that it had denied a similar request less than a month earlier.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the request for appointed pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing it later in the case. The court cautioned Illescas against filing additional requests until it rules on the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Illescas v. Annucci · No. 7:21-cv-08473
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Silvo R. Illescas, a self-represented plaintiff, moved for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion was received on November 17, 2025. The opinion states that Illescas had requested counsel several times and that the court had denied his previous application less than a month earlier.
The court explained that, in a civil case, it cannot require an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney through the court’s pro bono panel.
Legal standard
The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for appointing counsel to a self-represented litigant. First, the court considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have merit. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the person can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, the complexity of the legal issues, the factual investigation required, and whether expert cross-examination may be needed.
Ruling
The court said it could not determine at this early stage whether Illescas’s claims were likely to have merit. The parties had only recently submitted motion papers concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The court cautioned Illescas against filing further applications for counsel until it ruled on that pending motion.
The court therefore denied without prejudice Illescas’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel, allowing renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 252 and to mail Illescas a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.