Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-08423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Aftern Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, Judge Woods denied Sanderson’s request for volunteer counsel without prejudice.
Aftern Sanderson’s request for the court to request counsel was denied without prejudice, so it may be renewed later. Fee-free status was also denied for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Aftern Sanderson sued Leg Apparel LLC and other defendants, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under several federal, state, and city laws. Sanderson asked the court to request a lawyer to represent him.
The court recognized that Sanderson qualified financially for appointed-counsel consideration because his financial situation had not substantially changed since the court allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees. But the court could not determine whether his claims were likely to have legal substance, and it found that the other factors did not support requesting counsel at that time.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied the request for counsel without prejudice, meaning Sanderson may renew it later in the case. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order and certified that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08423
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Aftern Sanderson applied for the court to request counsel. The application was filed as Docket No. 43. Sanderson had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court found that his financial status had not substantially changed. The court therefore found that he qualified as indigent for purposes of the application.
Sanderson’s complaint asserted claims against Leg Apparel LLC, Amiee Lynn Accessories, Inc., Steven H. Spolansky, Melissa Romanino, and Stuart Diamond. The opinion states that the claims alleged discrimination and retaliation in the course of employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot require—an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. Courts must use this authority sparingly because they do not have funds to pay lawyers in these matters. The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claim appears likely to have legal substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason counsel would promote a fair result. The court also considered efforts to obtain counsel.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court could not determine at that stage whether Sanderson’s claims were likely to have legal substance. It also found that the other relevant factors did not support requesting counsel at that time.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Sanderson’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel without prejudice to renewing it later in the litigation. The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to send Sanderson a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.