Santos v. Cuomo

Background

Santos was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He filed a second motion asking the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. In the motion, Santos wrote that he did not understand the proceedings and believed that having a lawyer was his due-process right.

The court had denied Santos’s first request on December 26, 2019, without prejudice. The court again evaluated the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Santos’s claims, and his ability to present his case. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found no exceptional circumstances that would warrant appointing counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). It stated that Santos’s motion did not identify any change since the earlier denial. The court also relied on Santos’s recent submission opposing a pending motion to dismiss as evidence that he could participate in and present his case.

The court rejected Santos’s assertion that he had a constitutional right to counsel in this civil case, explaining that civil litigants do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to appointed counsel.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Santos’s second request for appointment of pro bono counsel. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Santos a copy of the order. This order addressed the request for counsel, not the merits of Santos’s underlying claims.