McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser

Background

McGriff was representing himself in this case. Judge Roman had previously denied without prejudice McGriff’s request for appointment of volunteer counsel, explaining that the case was still at an early stage, the defendants had not responded to the pleadings, and there was not yet a basis to conclude that McGriff had a sufficient chance of success.

After that ruling, the defendants moved to dismiss McGriff’s first amended complaint. Judge Roman denied that motion in part and ruled that McGriff had stated due-process claims against Keyser and Polizzi. The case was later referred to Judge Davison for supervision before trial.

Renewed request for counsel

McGriff filed a renewed motion asking the court to request volunteer counsel. He argued that the case involved complex litigation, several necessary investigations, and confusing constitutional issues. He also submitted documents showing that he had tried to obtain a lawyer without the court’s assistance.

Appointment of counsel means that the court asks a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who is proceeding without a lawyer. The court relied on the fact that McGriff’s due-process claims had survived a motion to dismiss. The court said this suggested that the claims were likely to be substantial.

Ruling

Judge Davison granted McGriff’s renewed application for the court to request volunteer counsel. The court directed the Clerk of Court to try to locate a volunteer lawyer to appear for McGriff. It explained that the court’s Pro Bono Fund may reimburse certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred by volunteer counsel, but warned that there were no funds to hire counsel in civil cases. Because the program depends on volunteers, the court stated that a substantial amount of time might pass before a lawyer agreed to represent McGriff. The opinion does not state that counsel had been found by the date of the order.