Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:18-cv-11111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bright v. Annucci, Judge Roman denied Willie Bright’s request for free legal counsel, without prejudice to renewing it later.
Willie Bright’s request for volunteer counsel was denied at that time, but the court left open the possibility of a later renewed request. The underlying civil-rights claims were not decided.
What happened
In Willie Bright v. Anthony Annucci, et al., Bright, who was representing himself and could not afford counsel, asked the court for a volunteer lawyer in his civil-rights case. This was his third request for appointed counsel.
The court denied the request because the case was still at an early stage: the defendants had been served but had not yet answered, and the court could not determine that Bright’s claims were likely to succeed or that the legal issues were unusually complex. The court also could not yet conclude that Bright was unable to handle the case himself.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the case.
The detailed version
- Bright v. Irman Russo, Annucci · No. 7:18-cv-11111
- Nelson Roman
- May 1, 2020
Background
Willie Bright filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself and proceeding as an indigent litigant. He filed an amended complaint adding defendants. By March 13, 2020, all defendants had been identified, and the court had directed service on each of them. On March 25, 2020, Bright submitted his third request for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him.
Bright attached records concerning his commitment at Central New York Psychiatric Center in late 2015. The opinion does not decide the merits of his civil-rights claims.
Legal standard
The court explained that it could not force an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court could ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel.
Before appointing counsel, the court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance, or at least 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 factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether professional cross-examination may be needed.
Ruling
The court denied Bright’s request at that stage of the litigation. Although the defendants had been identified and served, none had answered the complaint, so the pleadings stage was not complete. The court found no indication that Bright’s position showed a strong chance of success or that the legal issues were particularly complex. It also could not conclude that Bright was unable to proceed without assistance, while noting that this assessment could change as the case progressed.
The court therefore denied without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings Bright’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. The New York State Attorney General was directed to mail Bright a copy of the order and file proof of service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.