Megginson v. Molina

Background

Michael Megginson filed an application asking the court to request pro bono counsel—an attorney willing to represent him without payment—in his civil-rights lawsuit against the City of New York and other defendants. The complaint asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an allegation that Corrections Officer Roberta Molina sprayed him with OC gas while he was opening a pantry. Megginson alleged that the incident caused partial vision loss in his left eye and an asthma attack.

The court had granted Megginson permission to proceed without paying filing fees in July 2018. When he later applied for counsel, he stated that he had not previously filed an application to proceed without paying fees in the case and would attach an original financial application. He did not attach that application, so the court could not determine whether his financial circumstances had changed.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot require or appoint—a volunteer attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. Courts must use this authority sparingly. The court applied factors including whether the claim appeared likely to have legal substance, the person’s ability to investigate important facts and present the case, whether disputed evidence would require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would likely lead to a fairer result.

Court’s analysis

The defendants had moved for summary judgment, arguing that Officer Molina’s use of OC spray was objectively reasonable, that Megginson’s injuries did not amount to a constitutional violation, and that Molina was protected by qualified immunity. After reviewing the evidence submitted with that motion, especially the video evidence, the court found that Megginson’s claim was not “likely to be of substance.”

The court also concluded that the other factors weighed against requesting counsel. Although Megginson said he had contacted one law firm, the court did not find that counsel was then necessary to investigate important facts. It also found that the legal issues were not sufficiently complex to require representation. The court stated that representation would not likely produce a quicker or fairer result by clarifying the issues or improving examination of witnesses.

Disposition

The court denied Megginson’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The denial was without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket number 53 and mail Megginson a copy of the order.