Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-11628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Fischer v. Verizon New York, Judge Abrams denied without prejudice Fischer’s possible pro bono counsel request and deferred summary-judgment scheduling.
James H. Fischer’s request for court-appointed volunteer counsel and the timing of summary-judgment scheduling were affected; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc., James H. Fischer, who was representing himself, asked to pause the case while seeking a lawyer and to extend the deadline for requesting reconsideration of a sanctions decision.
The court explained that it was unclear whether Fischer wanted to hire a private lawyer or wanted the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer. The court found that more information was needed before deciding whether his case justified appointed counsel.
Judge Abrams denied the request for appointed volunteer counsel without prejudice, allowing Fischer to renew it later. She directed Fischer to write to Magistrate Judge Wang about extending the reconsideration deadline and postponed setting a summary-judgment briefing schedule until after Judge Wang decides that anticipated request.
The detailed version
- Fischer v. Verizon New York, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11628
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
James H. Fischer was representing himself in his case against Verizon New York, Inc. and Verizon Communications, Inc. On August 31, 2020, Magistrate Judge Wang denied Fischer’s motion for sanctions and directed the defendants to submit a joint letter proposing a schedule for summary-judgment briefing.
Fischer then asked to stay, or pause, the case until October 5, 2020, so he could select and hire a lawyer and have the lawyer review the case. He also asked for more time to file a motion asking Judge Wang to reconsider the sanctions decision. The defendants proposed a summary-judgment schedule and took no position on the reconsideration request, apart from stating that Fischer’s sanctions motion was baseless.
Appointment of Counsel
The court said Fischer’s letter was unclear about whether he sought private counsel or court-appointed pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer provided without charge. To the extent he sought appointed counsel, the court considered the factors required for that request, including the apparent merits of the case, Fischer’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, his efforts to find one, whether a lawyer was available, and his ability to handle the case without assistance.
The court concluded that a more developed record was needed to evaluate whether Fischer had a sufficient chance of success to justify appointed counsel. It also found that Fischer had not yet shown that he could not afford private counsel, had made efforts to find private counsel, or lacked the ability to gather facts and present his case without a lawyer.
Ruling and Scheduling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Fischer’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later in the case. The order did not set out a ruling on Fischer’s request for a stay or on the requested extension of the reconsideration deadline. Instead, it directed Fischer to write to Judge Wang about the reconsideration deadline. The court stated that it would enter a summary-judgment briefing schedule after Judge Wang decided Fischer’s anticipated reconsideration motion, and directed the parties to submit a joint proposed schedule within one week after that decision.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.