Owens v. Police Department of New York City
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-10213
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In David S. Owens v. City of New York, Judge Cott denied Owens’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
David S. Owens was affected because his request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. The order also addressed service of the defendants by the court clerk.
What happened
David S. Owens, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his case against the City of New York and other defendants. The request was filed on July 28, 2020.
The court explained that appointed counsel in civil cases is limited and requires an initial showing that the claims have some likelihood of success. Based on the current record, the court could not find that Owens’s claims were substantial or likely to succeed. The order also identified the court’s Pro Se Office and a New York Legal Assistance Group clinic as possible sources of help.
Judge James L. Cott denied the application for appointed counsel without prejudice, allowing Owens to renew the request later. The clerk was directed to close the motion and serve the defendants; the order said service was not Owens’s responsibility.
The detailed version
- Owens v. Police Department of New York City · No. 1:19-cv-10213
- George Daniels
- July 30, 2020
Background
David S. Owens, proceeding without a lawyer, moved on July 28, 2020, for appointment of counsel. The opinion identifies the defendants as the City of New York and others. The motion was docket entry number 37.
Legal standard
The court explained that it does not have a budget to pay appointed lawyers in civil cases and cannot require a lawyer to serve without pay. Before considering additional factors, such as a person’s ability to investigate facts, present the case, and handle the legal issues, the court requires a threshold showing of some likelihood that the claims have merit.
Ruling
The court denied Owens’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice because, based on the current record, it could not conclude that his claims were substantial or that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court directed the clerk to close docket entry number 37 and mark it as denied without prejudice.
The order stated that Owens could seek additional help from the court’s Pro Se Office and provided contact information for that office. It also described limited-scope telephone assistance available through the New York Legal Assistance Group, a private organization that is not part of the court. The court further clarified that the clerk would serve the defendants and that Owens was not responsible for serving them.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.