Washington-Steele v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-07431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Washington-Steele v. City of New York, Judge Abrams denied without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel.
The ruling affected Zahmeil D. Washington-Steele’s request for court-appointed pro bono counsel; it did not decide the underlying constitutional-rights claims.
What happened
Washington-Steele v. City of New York concerns Zahmeil D. Washington-Steele’s request for a free lawyer in a case alleging constitutional-rights violations. The plaintiff was representing himself and asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel.
The court said it must consider factors including the apparent strength of the claims, the plaintiff’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, availability of volunteer counsel, and ability to handle the case without assistance. The court found that the complaint needed a more fully developed record before it could decide whether the claims were likely enough to succeed to justify appointing counsel.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the request without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff may renew it later if he presents additional grounds. The order did not decide the underlying constitutional claims.
The detailed version
- Washington-Steele v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-07431
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 22, 2019
Background
Zahmeil D. Washington-Steele, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action alleging several violations of his constitutional rights. The court received his November 11, 2019 letter asking it to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer at no cost to him.
Legal standard
The court explained that deciding whether to appoint counsel requires consideration of several factors, including the apparent merits of the claims, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and his ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance. As a threshold requirement, the plaintiff had to show that his claims had substance or a likelihood of success. The court also noted that volunteer attorney time is limited, that the court cannot require attorneys to accept civil cases pro bono, and that it lacks resources to pay counsel in civil matters.
Ruling
After reviewing the complaint, the court found that a more fully developed record was necessary before it could determine whether the plaintiff’s chances of success warranted appointing counsel. Judge Ronnie Abrams therefore denied the request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal later if the plaintiff presented additional grounds. The order did not resolve the underlying constitutional-rights allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.