Melton v. Malcolm Shabazz, L.P.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-08111
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Melton v. Malcolm Shabazz, Judge Aaron denied without prejudice Melton’s requests for counsel, more discovery time, and Marshal assistance.
Myung-Ja Melton’s requests for a volunteer lawyer, additional discovery time, and United States Marshals Service assistance were denied without prejudice; the defendants proceeded under the existing summary-judgment briefing schedule.
What happened
In Melton v. Malcolm Shabazz, Myung-Ja Melton asked the court to provide a volunteer lawyer, extend the time for discovery, and help serve six subpoenas on entities that were not parties to the case.
The court said it could not yet determine whether Melton’s claims were likely to have substance. It also found that the additional discovery was not proportional to the needs of the case, noting that Melton appeared already to have obtained relevant deposition testimony.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied all three requests without prejudice until after the defendants’ anticipated summary-judgment motion is resolved. The court allowed Melton to explain in her opposition to that motion why additional discovery was necessary and said she could renew the requests if the motion was denied.
The detailed version
- Melton v. Malcolm Shabazz, L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-08111
- Stewart Aaron
- June 15, 2020
Background
The court considered letters from Plaintiff Myung-Ja Melton dated June 11 and 12, 2020, and the defendants’ response. Melton was proceeding without a lawyer. She requested (1) appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer attorney; (2) an extension of time to complete discovery; and (3) assistance from the United States Marshals Service in serving six subpoenas on non-party entities.
Analysis
Regarding counsel, the court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a court-appointed attorney. On the record then before it, the court could not determine whether Melton’s claims were likely to be substantial, a factor relevant to a request for pro bono counsel.
Regarding additional discovery, the court was not satisfied that the requested discovery was proportional to the needs of the case. The court noted that, in several instances, Melton appeared already to have obtained relevant deposition testimony. The court stated that Melton could explain in her opposition to the defendants’ anticipated summary-judgment motion why additional discovery was necessary under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
Ruling
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied without prejudice Melton’s requests for pro bono counsel, an extension of time to seek discovery from six non-party entities, and assistance from the United States Marshals Service in serving the subpoenas. The denial was to remain in place until after resolution of the defendants’ anticipated summary-judgment motion. The parties were directed to follow the summary-judgment briefing schedule in the court’s May 13, 2020 order. If the defendants’ motion was denied, the court stated that Melton could renew her current motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.