Behlin v. Rite Aid Pharmacy Store
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-04335
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Behlin v. Rite Aid Pharmacy Store, Judge Failla granted in part volunteer counsel for discovery and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Rahbu Behlin was affected directly: the court authorized an attempt to find him a volunteer lawyer, but only for discovery, and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order also affected the clerk, who was directed to seek volunteer counsel, and any attorney who might volunteer.
What happened
Rahbu Behlin v. Rite Aid Pharmacy Store concerns Behlin’s request for a volunteer lawyer in his civil-rights case. He alleged that Rite Aid employees assaulted him and that police officers denied him medical attention. The court had already found that he could proceed without paying court fees.
The court found that Behlin’s claims appeared substantial and that discovery would require several depositions of police officers and Rite Aid employees. It also found that the case involved difficult legal issues, including protections for government officials and whether private conduct can be treated as government action.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part Behlin’s application for appointed volunteer counsel, limited to pursuing discovery after the case’s stay was lifted. The clerk was directed to try to find a volunteer lawyer, but the court warned that no lawyer was guaranteed. Judge Failla also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Behlin v. Rite Aid Pharmacy Store · No. 1:18-cv-04335
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 24, 2020
Background
Rahbu Behlin asked the court to appoint volunteer counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which permits a court to appoint a lawyer for a person who cannot afford one. The court had previously allowed Behlin to proceed without paying court fees. Behlin submitted an application after the court gave him permission to do so.
Behlin asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that employees of Rite Aid Pharmacy Store, acting under color of state law, assaulted him, and that New York City Police Department officers denied him medical attention. The opinion also refers to anticipated discovery disputes raised by Behlin.
Analysis
The court applied the standard that an indigent person’s claims must first appear likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers factors including the person’s ability to investigate important facts, whether witness testimony and cross-examination will be central, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would promote a just result.
After reviewing the complaint, additional factual allegations, Behlin’s anticipated discovery disputes, and his application, the court concluded that the case would depend on depositions of police officers and Rite Aid employees who were key participants or witnesses. The court also found that the claims raised complex issues, including qualified immunity—the legal protection that may shield certain government officials from liability—and the state-action doctrine, which concerns when conduct may be treated as governmental conduct. The court determined that representation would help clarify the issues and improve the examination of witnesses.
Order
The court granted in part Behlin’s application for appointment of volunteer counsel. It directed the clerk to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer for the limited purpose of pursuing discovery once the stay was lifted on September 14, 2020. The court warned that volunteer counsel might not be found and that Behlin should be prepared to continue without a lawyer. It also told Behlin that he could inform the court if he did not want it to seek counsel.
The order separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Behlin permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The opinion does not specify what portion of the counsel application was not granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.