Redd v. Garell
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-09436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Redd v. Garrell, Judge Briccetti directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for discovery and settlement in Redd’s medical-care case.
Lorenzo Redd was affected because the court directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for limited discovery and possible settlement work. Any volunteer lawyer would have only the limited responsibilities described in the order, and the defendants remained parties to the underlying medical-care claims.
What happened
In Redd v. Garrell, Lorenzo Redd alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that Redd’s claims were likely substantial and that the case’s discovery needs, legal complexity, and multiple defense lawyers supported seeking volunteer counsel. The requested lawyer’s role would be limited to discovery and possible settlement discussions.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti directed the clerk to try to locate volunteer counsel but explained that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Redd v. Garell · No. 7:18-cv-09436
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 4, 2020
Background
Lorenzo Redd filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he qualified as unable to afford counsel.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court cannot require a lawyer to serve or pay the lawyer’s fees. The court therefore considers whether the claim appears likely to have substance and whether factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and any special circumstances favor volunteer representation.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Redd’s claim was “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other relevant factors favored his request because proving the allegations would require discovery, the legal issues were complex, and the defendants were represented by multiple sets of lawyers. The court concluded that volunteer representation could produce a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues and shaping questioning of witnesses.
Order and limits on representation
The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer willing to volunteer, for a limited appearance. The lawyer’s role would be to conduct discovery and could include settlement discussions. The lawyer would not be required to respond to a motion seeking to end the case; the lawyer could ask for an extension or request that the court expand the representation. Unless the court expanded the role, the representation would end after discovery, and it would terminate completely when counsel filed a notice of completion.
The court explained that there were no funds to retain counsel in civil cases, that volunteer lawyers were scarce, and that there was no guarantee a lawyer would accept the case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.