Batista v. New York Police Department
- Katherine Failla
- 1:17-cv-01994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Batista v. LeClair, Judge Failla granted Batista’s request for a volunteer lawyer for settlement talks.
Shamir Batista, who sought a volunteer lawyer for settlement discussions in his excessive-force case against Detective Michael LeClair.
What happened
In Shamir Batista v. Detective Michael LeClair, Batista asked for a free volunteer lawyer to help with ongoing settlement discussions. The court understood that he lacked money for a lawyer and that his incarceration made finding one more difficult.
The court noted that an earlier ruling had left Batista’s excessive-force claim about a taser deployment in place. This order did not decide that claim; it addressed only whether Batista should receive legal help for settlement discussions.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the request for that limited purpose. The court said a volunteer lawyer might make settlement discussions quicker and fairer, but warned that no lawyer was guaranteed and paused the case for 60 days while it sought a volunteer.
The detailed version
- Batista v. New York Police Department · No. 1:17-cv-01994
- Katherine Failla
- July 8, 2020
Background
Shamir Batista requested pro bono counsel—a volunteer lawyer who would represent him without charging a fee—for the limited purpose of helping with ongoing settlement discussions. The court understood from its review of the docket and discussions with Batista that he lacked funds to retain counsel and qualified to proceed without paying court fees. The court also considered his current incarceration, which had made raising money and finding a lawyer more difficult.
The opinion states that, in April 2020, the court had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. That earlier ruling left Batista’s claim that Detective Michael LeClair used excessive force by deploying a taser against him on January 12, 2017. The earlier ruling was not the subject of this order.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a lawyer represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court does not have to provide a lawyer and cannot require one to accept the representation; it can only ask a volunteer lawyer to take the case. Requests are therefore considered sparingly.
The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claim appears likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the importance of conflicting evidence and cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Batista’s remaining excessive-force claim was likely to have substance based on the reasons given in the earlier summary-judgment opinion. It also found that the relevant factors favored providing volunteer counsel. After the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for settlement, the court understood from Batista and Judge Wang that the discussions would proceed more efficiently and fairly if Batista received legal advice.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Batista’s request for pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of settlement discussions. The court explained that it had no funds to pay a lawyer, that finding a volunteer could take a substantial amount of time, and that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case. The court paused matters for 60 days while seeking counsel. It also stated that, if a lawyer volunteered, Batista would decide whether to retain that lawyer.
The court certified that any appeal from this 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.