Ayuso v. Griffin
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-03419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ayuso v. Griffin, Judge Roman denied Marcus Ayuso’s request for appointed pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was at an early stage.
Marcus Ayuso’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice; the order did not resolve the underlying claims against Dr. R. Bentivegna and Correction Officer T. Sawyer.
What happened
In Ayuso v. Griffin, Marcus Ayuso, representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer. He said he lacked legal knowledge and had difficulty handling the case.
The court noted that the case was still in its early stages: the defendants had not responded to the amended complaint, and the parties had not begun discovery or filed summary-judgment motions. The court found no indication that Ayuso’s position was likely to succeed or that the case involved unusually complex issues.
Judge Roman denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, meaning Ayuso may renew it later. The court said its assessment could change as the case continues.
The detailed version
- Ayuso v. Griffin · No. 7:18-cv-03419
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Marcus Ayuso, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel. His request was dated February 4, 2020. Ayuso stated that he lacked legal knowledge and had found it difficult to handle the case.
Legal standard
The court explained that, in a civil case, it cannot require a lawyer to represent an indigent person. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer lawyer from the court’s pro bono panel.
Under Second Circuit precedent, the court must first consider whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, meaning some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court may consider other factors, including whether the person can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without assistance, the amount of factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether skilled cross-examination is needed.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the action was still in its infancy. The defendants had not yet responded to Ayuso’s amended complaint, and the parties had not entered discovery or made summary-judgment motions. At that stage, the court found no indication that Ayuso’s position was likely to be of substance or that particularly complex issues required appointed counsel. The court also could not determine that Ayuso was unable to handle the case without assistance, while noting that this assessment might change as the case progressed.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Ayuso’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Ayuso a copy of the order and record proof of service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.