Brown v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:19-cv-02296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. Annucci, Judge Roman denied Brown’s request for appointed pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess.
Carl Brown’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied for now, but the order allows him to renew the request later in the case.
What happened
In Brown v. Annucci, Carl Brown, representing himself in a civil-rights lawsuit, sent two letters asking the court, among other things, to appoint a free lawyer.
The court said it could request a lawyer from its volunteer panel but could do so only after considering whether Brown’s claims appeared likely to have substance and whether the case was too difficult for him to handle alone. The case was at a very early stage: the defendants had not answered or filed motions, and there had been no discovery or motion practice.
Judge Nelson S. Roman found no circumstances requiring appointed counsel at that time. He denied Brown’s request without prejudice to renewing it later in the case.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Annucci · No. 7:19-cv-02296
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 2, 2020
Background
Carl Brown, proceeding without a lawyer in a civil-rights action under Section 1983, submitted two letters requesting, among other relief, appointment of pro bono counsel. This was his first request for a volunteer lawyer.
Legal Standard
The court explained that, unlike in a criminal case, it cannot require an attorney to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s pro bono panel.
The court applied standards requiring it first to consider whether the plaintiff’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, including the person’s ability to find a lawyer independently, the complexity of the legal issues, the amount of factual investigation required, and the need for professional cross-examination.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Nelson S. Roman found that the request could not be granted at such an early stage. The defendants had not answered or filed any motions, and no discovery or motion practice had occurred. The court found no indication that Brown’s position showed a strong chance of success or that the legal issues were particularly complex.
Brown identified problems he was having with staff at Sullivan Correctional Facility, but the court could not yet conclude that he was unable to handle the case without assistance. The court noted that this assessment could change as the case progressed.
Disposition
The court denied Brown’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Brown a copy of the order and show proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.