Ceara v. Deacon
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:13-cv-06023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ceara v. Deacon, Judge Karas directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Ceara’s trial and denied Rafael Ceara permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Rafael Ceara was granted limited access to requested volunteer representation for trial, while any volunteer attorney’s obligations would be limited to the matters described in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to seek counsel, and Ceara was denied permission to appeal the order without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Ceara v. Deacon, Rafael Ceara claimed under federal civil-rights law that Joseph Deacon used excessive force by pushing him down stairs and threatened him to deter a grievance. The court had already allowed Ceara to proceed without paying court fees, and he sought free legal representation for trial.
The court found that Ceara’s claim was likely substantial and that the other factors for requesting volunteer counsel favored representation. The court said counsel could help investigate and present the evidence, sharpen the issues, and make the trial quicker and fairer.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Ceara’s request for limited volunteer representation at trial and directed the clerk to seek counsel. The representation would not automatically cover a later dispositive motion and would end after trial or upon counsel’s notice of completion; the court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Ceara v. Deacon · No. 7:13-cv-06023
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 9, 2020
Background
Rafael Ceara sued Joseph Deacon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Deacon pushed him down several stairs, used excessive force, and then threatened him to deter him from filing a grievance. Ceara asserted that this violated rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court had granted Ceara permission to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he qualified as unable to afford counsel.
Ceara sought volunteer legal representation for his upcoming trial. The court stated that the trial was likely to occur sometime in March 2021 and was estimated to last approximately one week. The parties had submitted portions of a proposed joint pretrial order and related proposed trial materials, and no motions in limine had been filed.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court cannot force an attorney to accept the representation or appoint counsel in the same way counsel may be supplied in a criminal case. The court applied factors including whether the claim appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, whether conflicting evidence would require cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would increase the likelihood of a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Ceara’s claim was “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other factors supported requesting counsel, concluding that representation would lead to a quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues and shaping examination.
Order and scope of representation
The court granted Ceara’s application for limited pro bono representation at trial and directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney. The attorney would file a notice of limited appearance. Counsel could also participate in settlement discussions.
The representation would not cover matters beyond those described in the order. In particular, counsel would not be required to respond to a dispositive motion. If Deacon filed such a motion, counsel could seek relief such as more time for Ceara to respond or an expansion of counsel’s role. Unless the court expanded the representation, counsel’s role would end when the trial was completed. It would terminate fully when counsel filed a notice of completion.
The court warned that no funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases, that locating a volunteer could take a lengthy period, and that there was no guarantee an attorney would accept the case. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Ceara permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.