Urgiles v. Department of Corrections of N.Y. State

Background

On October 14, 2020, the Court ordered Felix Urgiles to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court received Urgiles’s October 19 letter on October 29. The opinion states that earlier orders had asked Urgiles for more specific information about the dates and times of the alleged mistreatment, the number of nurses, correction officers, and doctors he sought to name, and physical descriptions of those unidentified defendants. The earlier orders had not instructed him to provide their names.

Ur giles’s letter identified a possible defendant, Sergeant Brown, who was not named in the complaint but appeared to match the John Doe sergeant whom the complaint described as telling Urgiles to “keep grieving” on May 5, 2020. The letter also requested appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer without charge to the litigant.

Court’s analysis

The Court explained that it may ask attorneys on its pro bono panel to represent an indigent person in a civil case, but it cannot require an attorney to do so. The Court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance and, if so, considers factors such as the complexity of the legal issues and the need for skilled cross-examination.

The Court found that the case was still at an early stage, the defendants had not yet been identified or named, and no defendants had been served. It also found no indication at that time that Urgiles’s position was likely to have substance, that the issues were especially complex, or that he could not handle the case without assistance. The Court stated that those circumstances could change as the case continued.

Rulings

The Court directed the New York State Attorney General to review the information in Urgiles’s letter, determine the identity and badge number of the sergeant described there, and advise whether the information helped identify any John Doe defendants. The response was due November 16, 2020.

The Court denied Urgiles’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Urgiles.