Vann v. Sudranski
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:16-cv-07367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vann v. Sudranski, Judge Briccetti directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Vann’s remaining excessive-force claim.
The order affects the plaintiff, Kouriockein Vann, by directing the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for his remaining claim against Correction Officer Y. Sudranski. It also sets limits and conditions for any volunteer lawyer who accepts the representation.
What happened
In Vann v. Sudranski, the plaintiff asked for a free lawyer to help with settlement negotiations and, if needed, trial. His remaining claim alleges that Correction Officer Y. Sudranski used excessive force during a pat frisk on July 12, 2015.
The court said the plaintiff was financially unable to afford a lawyer and that his claim was likely substantial. It also found that the conflicting accounts of the incident and the need to question witnesses supported having a lawyer represent him.
Judge Briccetti granted the request by directing the Clerk to try to find volunteer counsel. The court warned that no lawyer might volunteer and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Vann v. Sudranski · No. 7:16-cv-07367
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 8, 2020
Background
The plaintiff had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees because the court found him financially unable to afford them. He brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that Correction Officer Y. Sudranski used excessive force during a pat frisk on July 12, 2015.
The court had previously dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against other defendants and had granted summary judgment—judgment without a trial—in favor of Sudranski and Lieutenant Hann on other claims. The court stated that the plaintiff’s remaining claim was an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Sudranski.
Request for Pro Bono Counsel
The plaintiff requested a volunteer lawyer to handle settlement negotiations and, if necessary, trial. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but it cannot require an attorney to volunteer or provide public funds for a civil case.
The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. It found that the plaintiff’s remaining claim was “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the plaintiff could not effectively conduct settlement negotiations or try the case himself, and that the parties’ conflicting accounts and credibility would be central at trial, making cross-examination important. The court concluded that representation would help produce a quicker and fairer result.
Ruling
The court granted the request by directing the Clerk to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for the plaintiff for settlement negotiations and, if necessary, trial. Any volunteer lawyer would have limited responsibilities described in the order, and the representation would end when counsel filed a notice of completion.
The court warned that volunteer counsel might not be found and that the plaintiff should be prepared to continue without a lawyer. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.