Samborsky v. Rothstein
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-00298
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Samborsky v. Rothstein, Judge Woods denied Samborsky’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Michael Samborsky’s request for pro bono counsel and ability to appeal this order without paying filing fees were affected. The order did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Samborsky v. Rothstein concerns Michael Samborsky’s renewed request for a lawyer to represent him without charge while opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The court said it lacked enough information to decide whether Samborsky’s claims were likely to have substance, a required consideration for appointing pro bono counsel. The opinion did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Judge Woods denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, allowing Samborsky to renew it later, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees because the court found any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Samborsky v. Rothstein · No. 1:20-cv-00298
- Gregory Woods
- June 11, 2020
Background
Michael Samborsky submitted his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and renewed his request for pro bono counsel. The opinion identifies the defendants as Sara Rothstein, doing business as 32BJ Benefit Funds; Alberta Galdri, doing business as 32BJ Benefit Funds; and Regine Breton, doing business as 32BJ Benefit Funds.
Request for Counsel
The court denied Samborsky’s application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The court stated that it did not yet have enough information to assess his claims under the standards set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claim was “likely to be of substance.” The court said it would address the application after ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Appeal Filing Fees
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The order denied the renewed request for pro bono counsel without prejudice and denied appeal-related permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It did not rule on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Samborsky a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.