Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2020

Plasencia v. City of New York Department of Education

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-11838-ALC
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Plascencia v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Carter ordered the plaintiff to report whether she had counsel or would proceed without one for mediation.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, the volunteer law-school clinic or attorney, and the court’s mediation process were affected. The plaintiff had to choose between obtaining her own counsel and proceeding without a lawyer for mediation, and then notify the court by October 9, 2020.

What happened

In Plascencia v. New York City Department of Education, a law-school clinic volunteered to represent the plaintiff for mediation, but she declined the offer. The court said she may have mistakenly believed it was again seeking a lawyer for her.

The court explained that volunteer lawyers are limited and that people representing themselves cannot demand their choice of free counsel. The plaintiff could find her own lawyer or continue representing herself, including during mediation.

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. ordered the plaintiff to tell the court by October 9, 2020, whether she had obtained a lawyer independently or agreed to represent herself for mediation. The clerk was directed to mail her a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Plasencia v. City of New York Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-11838-ALC
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 11, 2020

Background

The court stated that a law-school clinic had volunteered to represent the plaintiff, who was proceeding without a lawyer, for purposes of mediation. The plaintiff declined that volunteer representation. The court said she might have believed that it had renewed efforts to find her counsel.

Court’s explanation

The court explained that volunteer attorneys are a scarce resource and that people representing themselves are not entitled to choose their free counsel. It cited Cooper v. Sargenti for that principle. The court stated that if the plaintiff chose not to work with the volunteer attorney or law-school clinic that contacted her, her options were to obtain counsel on her own or proceed without a lawyer in all aspects of the matter, including mediation.

Order

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. ordered the plaintiff to inform the court by October 9, 2020, whether she had obtained counsel independently or consented to appearing without a lawyer for mediation. The clerk was directed to mail the plaintiff a copy of the order. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying claims.

Effect

The order addressed representation for mediation and required a response from the plaintiff; it did not decide the merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.