Best v. The City of N.Y.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05973
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Best v. The City of N.Y., Judge Wang directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Sean Best but warned representation was not guaranteed.
Sean Best was affected because the court directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for him but required him to remain prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The order also addressed his duty to keep the court informed of his current address.
What happened
Best v. The City of N.Y. concerns Sean Best’s renewed request that the court seek a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to request pro bono counsel through the court’s volunteer attorney panel. The court explained that no public funds are available to hire lawyers in civil cases, that attorneys volunteer, and that no attorney is guaranteed to accept the case.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang also told Best to update his address and be prepared to continue without a lawyer. The order states that failing to promptly notify the court of an address change could risk dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Best v. The City of N.Y. · No. 1:18-cv-05973
- George Daniels
- June 10, 2020
Background
Sean Best, the plaintiff, filed a renewed application asking the court to request pro bono counsel—an attorney willing to volunteer representation—in his civil case against The City of N.Y. and other defendants. The opinion addresses only the request for counsel and does not resolve the underlying claims.
Ruling
After reviewing Best’s application and the case file, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang directed the Clerk of Court to request pro bono counsel for Best under the court’s Pro Bono Panel procedures. The court explained that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and that the process depends on volunteers. The case would be placed on a list circulated to attorneys who belong to the panel, but the court stated that no volunteer attorney was guaranteed to accept the case.
The order stated that an attorney who accepted the case would contact Best directly. It also told Best to update his address as needed, noting that he had not updated the docket after defendants represented that he had been released from custody. The court warned that failing to promptly notify the court in writing of an address change could risk dismissal. Best was instructed to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer, and the order stated that accepting any attorney’s offer would remain his decision.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.