Valentin v. Tarrytown Police Dept.
- Rom
- 7:26-cv-05158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Valentin v. Tarrytown Police Dept., Judge Román denied Valentin’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because the case was too early and its strength was unclear.
Mark Valentin’s request for appointed counsel was denied for now, but the opinion allows him to renew the request later.
What happened
In Valentin v. Tarrytown Police Dept., Mark Valentin asked the Southern District of New York to appoint a free lawyer to represent him in his civil case against the Tarrytown Police Department and other defendants.
The court said appointed counsel may be considered when a self-represented person’s position appears likely to have substance and other factors support appointment. The case was still at an early stage, discovery and dispositive motions had not begun, and the court could not determine that Valentin needed help or that his claims had a strong chance of success.
Judge Nelson S. Román denied Valentin’s motion without prejudice, allowing him to renew the request later as the case develops. The clerk was directed to mail Valentin a copy of the order and record proof of service.
The detailed version
- Valentin v. Tarrytown Police Dept. · No. 7:26-cv-05158
- Rom
- Aug. 21, 2026
Background
Mark Valentin, proceeding without a lawyer, applied on June 17, 2026, for appointment of pro bono counsel. The motion was filed as ECF No. 4. The opinion concerns only whether counsel should be appointed; it does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may, in its discretion, ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel for an indigent litigant. The court explained that it first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance or some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including whether the person can obtain representation independently and whether the person can handle the case without assistance given the factual investigation and credibility issues required.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the action was still in its early stages. The parties had not yet begun discovery or filed dispositive motions. At that point, the court could not conclude that Valentin was unable to handle the case without assistance. The court also could not determine that his position showed a strong chance of success, and it found that the legal issues were not particularly complex.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Román denied Valentin’s motion without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The clerk was directed to mail Valentin a copy of the order, show proof of service on the docket, and terminate the motion at ECF No. 4.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.