Washington v. City of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-00601
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Washington v. City of New York, Judge Oetken denied Gregory Washington’s request for appointed counsel but extended his deadline to oppose dismissal.
Gregory A. Washington, who sought appointed counsel and additional time to oppose dismissal; the defendants, whose request to deem the matter unopposed was denied.
What happened
In Washington v. City of New York, Gregory A. Washington, representing himself, alleged that he was held 20 days beyond his parole maximum release date and that this violated his constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss, and Washington asked the court to appoint a lawyer because he did not know how to respond.
The court found that Washington’s allegations had some chance of success, but concluded that the case was not yet legally complex and that he did not currently need help investigating facts or questioning witnesses. It denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal later, extended his deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss until August 30, 2020, and denied the defendants’ request to treat the motion as unopposed.
Judge J. Paul Oetken issued the order on August 3, 2020.
The detailed version
- Washington v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-00601
- James Oetken
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Gregory A. Washington filed the action while representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee. In his second amended complaint, he alleged that he was held 20 days beyond his parole maximum release date, violating his constitutional rights. He named Administrative Law Judge Brigitte Fortune, Parole Revocation Specialist Glenda Bubb, and Chief of Parole Edward Delrio as defendants.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action. Instead of opposing that motion, Washington asked the court to appoint counsel, explaining that he did not know how to respond because the case was “very complicated.”
Appointment of Counsel
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a court may appoint counsel for a person who cannot afford a lawyer. The court first considers whether the claims have some likelihood of merit. If they do, the court also considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate important facts, whether witness questioning will be important, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason that a lawyer would likely lead to a fairer result.
The court found that Washington’s allegations had at least some chance of success. It nevertheless concluded that the legal issues did not yet appear particularly complex, that Washington did not need assistance investigating facts or conducting questioning at this stage, and that no special reason supported appointing counsel.
Disposition
The court denied Washington’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. It extended his time to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss until August 30, 2020. The court stated that if Washington did not deliver his opposition to the proper prison authorities by that date, it would consider the motion unopposed. The court also denied the defendants’ request to have the matter deemed unopposed.
Judge J. Paul Oetken issued the order on August 3, 2020. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of Washington’s constitutional claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.