Fernandez v. New York City
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-04021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Randy Fernandez v. City of New York, Judge Furman denied counsel without prejudice and extended Fernandez’s summary-judgment response deadline.
Randy Fernandez’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, and his deadline to oppose the pending summary-judgment motion was extended. The order did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
Randy Fernandez v. City of New York concerns Fernandez’s request for a lawyer in his case against the City of New York, Officer Chopra, and Captain Griffin. The court received his January 9, 2020 letter and treated it as an application for counsel.
The court said it needed a more developed record to decide whether Fernandez’s claims had enough potential merit to justify appointing counsel. The order does not decide the underlying claims or the pending summary-judgment motion.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the application for counsel without prejudice, allowing Fernandez to renew it if he later shows a potentially meritorious claim. The court also extended his deadline to oppose summary judgment from January 15 to January 31, 2020, with any reply due within one week after the opposition.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. New York City · No. 1:19-cv-04021
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
The court received a January 9, 2020 letter from Randy Fernandez and liberally construed it as an application for counsel. The opinion identifies Fernandez as proceeding without a lawyer. The defendants are the City of New York, Officer Chopra, and Captain Griffin. A motion for summary judgment was pending, but this order does not decide that motion or the merits of Fernandez’s claims.
Legal standard
The court explained that an applicant for appointed counsel must first show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court also considers the applicant’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to find a lawyer, whether counsel is available, and the applicant’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without a lawyer. The court noted that volunteer attorney time is limited and that requests for counsel should not be granted indiscriminately.
Ruling
The court concluded that a more fully developed record was necessary to determine whether Fernandez’s chances of success justified appointing counsel. It therefore denied Fernandez’s January 9 application for counsel without prejudice to renewal when the existence of a potentially meritorious claim could be demonstrated. The court also extended the deadline for Fernandez to oppose the pending summary-judgment motion from January 15, 2020, to January 31, 2020. Any reply was due within one week after the opposition. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Fernandez.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.