Elvis Sanchez v. City of New York

Background

Sanchez brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and individual defendants based on alleged incidents while he was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. His complaint alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs and to a serious risk that other inmates would assault him.

Earlier rulings had narrowed the case. On March 28, 2019, the court granted a motion to dismiss as to the City and certain individual defendants. On May 1, 2020, the court granted summary judgment in part and denied summary judgment in part on the remaining claims. The claim that remained for trial alleged that Defendants White, Monroe, and Daif were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of assault during the February 25, 2015 incident. The opinion states that the summary-judgment ruling found material factual disputes on that claim.

Request for Volunteer Counsel

Sanchez asked the court to seek volunteer counsel to represent him at trial. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying court fees, and his most recent letter stated that his financial status had not changed. The court therefore found that he was unable to afford counsel.

Under the federal statute concerning people unable to afford counsel, a court may request—but cannot appoint or pay for—a volunteer lawyer in a civil case. The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claims appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the expected need for witness questioning, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would likely produce a fairer result.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Sanchez’s remaining claims appeared likely to have substance because the earlier summary-judgment ruling found material factual issues. The court also noted that settlement appeared unlikely and that the case was ready for trial.

The court concluded that the remaining Hodge factors favored seeking counsel. It expected extensive evidence, including questioning Sanchez’s witnesses and cross-examining the defendants’ witnesses. Although Sanchez had completed discovery without a lawyer, the opinion states that English was his second language and that this would impair his ability to present the case at trial. The court also identified legal issues involving qualified immunity and whether the defendants’ conduct was objectively unreasonable. Finally, the court noted that Sanchez had requested volunteer counsel several times and had tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain a lawyer.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate volunteer counsel to represent Sanchez at trial. It did not guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer, and it stated that Sanchez should be prepared to continue representing himself. The Clerk was also directed to mail Sanchez a copy of the order.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed representation for the trial; it did not decide the merits of the remaining deliberate-indifference claim. The case was allowed to continue at its normal pace while the Clerk attempted to find volunteer counsel.