Williams, Scott & Associates LLC v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
John T. Williams v. United States: Judge McMahon denied counsel for Williams and his businesses, but allowed a later request.
John T. Williams and his two businesses, whose request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the complaint itself was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In John T. Williams, et al. v. United States of America, et al., Williams asked the court to appoint a free lawyer for him and his two businesses in his Federal Tort Claims Act case.
The court said it was inclined to dismiss the claims because they might be filed too late or because required administrative steps might not have been completed. It denied the request for counsel without prejudice, meaning Williams could renew it later, and gave him 30 days to file a declaration required by an earlier order.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied free-court-fee status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not dismiss the complaint at that time, but warned that failure to file the declaration could lead to dismissal.
The detailed version
- Williams, Scott & Associates LLC v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-08736
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 27, 2019
Background
John T. Williams was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. The court had previously directed him to explain within 30 days why his claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act should not be dismissed as untimely or unexhausted. On November 20, 2019, Williams asked the court to appoint free legal counsel to represent him and his two businesses.
Analysis
The court identified several factors relevant to an indigent litigant’s request for appointed counsel, including the apparent merits of the case, the litigant’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the litigant’s ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court stated that the merits receive the most attention. Because it was inclined to dismiss Williams’s claims as untimely or unexhausted, it denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.
Ruling
The court denied Williams’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. It gave Williams 30 days from the order’s date to submit the declaration required by the earlier order. The court warned that if Williams failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the November 12, 2019 order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.