Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-00709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District, Judge Seibel ordered a search for volunteer counsel to represent Schneider only in mediation.
Jonathan M. Schneider is affected because the order seeks, but does not guarantee, a volunteer lawyer for mediation only. The defendants and the case are otherwise not resolved by this order.
What happened
Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District concerns Jonathan M. Schneider’s claims under the Rehabilitation Act, a civil-rights law protecting people with disabilities, a federal civil-rights statute, and the First Amendment. He alleges that he and his son faced retaliation after raising concerns about services and accommodations for his son’s multiple disabilities.
The court directed the Clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer for Schneider, but only for mediation before a magistrate judge. The lawyer would not be required to handle other parts of the case, including responding to a dispositive motion, unless the court expanded the representation. The court warned that no lawyer might volunteer and that Schneider should be prepared to continue without one.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the limited search for counsel and stated that any appeal from the order would not be considered to have been taken in good faith, so fee-free appeal status was denied for that appeal.
The detailed version
- Schneider v. Mahopac Central School District · No. 7:20-cv-00709
- Cathy Seibel
- Oct. 1, 2020
Background
Jonathan M. Schneider asserts claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and the First Amendment. The opinion says he alleges that he and his son were retaliated against after expressing concerns about services and accommodations for his son’s multiple disabilities.
Limited Pro Bono Representation
The court directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer lawyer to enter a limited appearance for Schneider. The representation would be only for mediation before a magistrate judge. The lawyer would file a notice stating that the appearance was limited to that purpose.
The order states that the volunteer lawyer would not be responsible for other aspects of Schneider’s representation. In particular, the lawyer would not be required to respond to a dispositive motion, which is a motion that could resolve some or all of the case. The lawyer could ask for relief, including more time for Schneider to respond or an expansion of the lawyer’s role. Unless the court expanded the representation, it would end after mediation and after the lawyer filed a notice of completion.
Pro Bono Fund and Availability
The order states that volunteer counsel could apply for reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court’s Pro Bono Fund. It also warns that the court relies on volunteers, that there are few available volunteer attorneys, that finding counsel could take a long time, and that no volunteer is guaranteed to accept the case. Schneider was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to attempt to locate volunteer counsel for the limited purposes described in the order. It did not state that counsel had already been appointed or that a volunteer had agreed to represent Schneider. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal. Judge Cathy Seibel signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.