Burnett v. White Plains Hospital
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-06463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jaron Burnett v. White Plains Hospital, Judge Seibel denied Burnett’s renewed request for volunteer counsel without prejudice, finding the case too early and not unusually complex.
Jaron Burnett, who is representing himself, was denied a volunteer lawyer for now; the request may be renewed later in the case.
What happened
Jaron Burnett, representing himself, renewed his request for a volunteer lawyer in his case against White Plains Hospital and other defendants. He said defense lawyers had appeared and that the defendants planned to seek dismissal, creating financial and legal disadvantages.
Burnett argued that the case had reached the later stage when counsel was needed. He pointed to the planned dismissal motion, the need to address whether the defendants acted under state authority, and the possible need to obtain and analyze video and medical records. He also said he remained financially eligible because he had previously received permission to proceed without paying filing fees and was receiving Supplemental Security Income.
Judge Cathy Seibel denied the renewed request without prejudice, meaning Burnett may renew it later. Judge Seibel said the changes were expected, it was still too early to know whether the claims had substance or would reach evidence-gathering or trial, and the issues were not especially complex.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. White Plains Hospital · No. 7:25-cv-06463
- Cathy Seibel
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
Jaron Burnett is representing himself in this civil case. He asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court had denied his earlier request on September 11, 2025. Burnett renewed the request, arguing that circumstances had changed because White Plains Hospital and Anthony Anderson had obtained counsel and had asked for permission to file a motion seeking dismissal. The court had ordered Burnett to submit a response to that anticipated motion by December 30, 2025.
Burnett argued that the case had become procedurally and legally complex. He identified the question of whether the defendants acted under state authority for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including the joint-action and public-function doctrines. He also said he needed a lawyer to investigate facts, obtain video and medical records, conduct discovery, and respond to the anticipated dismissal motion. Burnett stated that he continued to meet the financial requirements for appointed counsel because he had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees and was receiving Supplemental Security Income.
The court’s reasoning
The court denied the renewed request without prejudice to renewal later in the case. It explained that the only changes were that defense counsel had appeared and that the defendants wanted to seek dismissal, and the court considered both developments expected. The court also stated that counsel are a scarce resource and that it remained too early to determine whether Burnett’s claims were likely to have legal substance or whether the case would reach evidence-gathering or trial. Finally, the court found that the issues were not particularly complex and that Burnett’s own response to the defendants’ pre-motion letter showed that he understood them.
Disposition
The renewed motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 23.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.