Richards v. City of New York Comptroller
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-10697
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Richards v. City of New York Comptroller, Magistrate Judge Cott denied Richards’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Alroy Richards’s request for court-appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; his underlying claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Richards v. City of New York Comptroller, Alroy Richards, who was representing himself, sued defendants over alleged employment discrimination, breach of contract, and whistleblower-law violations. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he lacked federal-court experience.
The court explained that it generally cannot pay lawyers in civil cases and that appointed counsel is not automatic. Richards first had to show that his claims were likely to have merit, but the court could not make that finding at this early stage.
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott denied Richards’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, allowing him to renew the request later. The clerk was directed to close and mark the motion denied.
The detailed version
- Richards v. City of New York Comptroller · No. 1:19-cv-10697
- James Cott
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Alroy Richards, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against the defendants alleging employment discrimination, breach of contract, violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and other claims. He moved for appointment of counsel in a motion dated November 28, 2019. Richards said he had limited knowledge, skills, experience, and qualifications and had no experience with federal-court matters.
Legal standard
The court stated that it does not have a budget to pay appointed counsel in civil cases and cannot require a lawyer to work without pay. Before considering other factors—such as a party’s ability to investigate facts, present the case, and handle complex legal issues—a court requires a threshold showing that the claims have some likelihood of merit.
Ruling
The court denied Richards’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal. At this early stage, the court could not conclude that Richards’s claims likely had merit and was not aware of any special reason requiring appointment of counsel. The clerk was directed to mail Richards a copy of the order, close docket entry number 7, and mark it denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.