Jackson v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jackson v. Annucci, Judge Halpern said defendants were not in default and denied Jackson’s request for counsel without prejudice.
Lavogia Jackson and the defendants, including Defendant Dahl; the counsel ruling affects Jackson’s ability to seek volunteer representation later.
What happened
In Jackson v. Annucci, Lavogia Jackson asked about serving Defendant Dahl and when the defendants had to answer the complaint. The Marshals served Dahl on July 17, 2020, and the court said the defendants had 60 days to respond, so none was in default.
Jackson, who was representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying court fees, also asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer for him. The court explained that civil litigants are not automatically entitled to counsel and that volunteer lawyers should be requested sparingly.
Judge Halpern said it was too early to determine whether Jackson’s claims were likely to have substance. The court denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewing it later.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02008
- Philip Halpern
- July 29, 2020
Background
Lavogia Jackson, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, submitted two requests. One asked for clarification about service of the complaint on Defendant Dahl and about when the defendants had to file their answers. The other asked the court to seek volunteer counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Service and response deadline
The Marshals served Jackson’s complaint on Defendant Dahl on July 17, 2020. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2)–(3), the court stated that the defendants had 60 days to file a responsive pleading. It therefore concluded that no defendant was in default because the time to answer had not yet expired.
The opinion does not state a separate grant or denial of Jackson’s request for clarification; it provides the requested information about service, the response period, and default.
Request for counsel
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a court-provided lawyer. Under the statute governing proceedings without payment of fees, a court cannot appoint a lawyer to represent a civil litigant, but it may request that a lawyer volunteer. The court also stated that such requests should be made sparingly because volunteer-lawyer time is limited.
One consideration is whether the plaintiff’s claims appear likely to have substance. Because the case was at an early stage, the court said it could not yet make that determination. Judge Philip M. Halpern therefore denied Jackson’s request for counsel without prejudice to renewing it at a later date.
Disposition
The court stated that no defendant was in default, and it denied Jackson’s request for volunteer counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The order did not decide the merits of Jackson’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.