Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections
- John Koeltl
- 1:18-cv-11827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge Koeltl denied Hassane’s counsel request without prejudice because he failed to show a potentially substantial claim.
Chafik Hassane’s application for appointed counsel; the opinion does not state the effect on the underlying case.
What happened
In Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections, Chafik Hassane asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him in his civil case.
The court explained that a person seeking appointed counsel must first show that the claim has substance or a reasonable likelihood of success. Only after that showing may the court consider other factors, such as the person’s ability to handle the case and the complexity of the legal issues.
The court found that Hassane had not made the required showing and denied his application without prejudice. Judge John G. Koeltl directed the Clerk to close Docket No. 23.
The detailed version
- Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections · No. 1:18-cv-11827
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 5, 2019
Background
Chafik Hassane applied for the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The opinion concerns only that application and does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
Legal standard
The court applied the Second Circuit’s standard for appointing counsel to an indigent civil litigant. As a threshold matter, the applicant must show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, including the applicant’s ability to obtain representation independently, ability to handle the case without assistance, need for factual investigation, complexity of the legal issues, and need for cross-examination.
Ruling
The court found that Hassane had not made the required threshold showing. It therefore denied his application for appointed counsel without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 23. The opinion did not decide the merits of Hassane’s underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it decided an ancillary request for appointed counsel without reaching the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.