King v. White

Background

Sharif King sued Correction Officer White and other defendants. The opinion states that King brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the City of New York and individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

King alleged that he has epilepsy and experiences seizures. He said that, before being transported from Downstate Correctional Facility to the Manhattan Detention Complex on November 12, 2019, he told Captain Flemens that he had epilepsy and had not received his prescribed anti-seizure medication. King alleged that he asked to sit where Captain Flemens could see him and to have his seat belt secured, but that these requests were denied. He alleged that he then suffered a grand mal seizure during the trip and sustained injuries and other symptoms.

King further alleged that, after he arrived at the Manhattan Detention Complex, other defendants ignored his requests for medical attention and a change of clothing. He also alleged that ADW Glover failed to investigate the events and failed to address his requests for accommodations related to his medical needs.

Request for volunteer counsel

King had applied to proceed without paying court fees, and Judge Colleen McMahon had granted that request on July 2, 2020. The court therefore found that King was unable to afford counsel. In civil cases, the court explained, it may ask a volunteer lawyer to represent an eligible litigant, but it cannot require a lawyer to take the case or provide payment from court funds.

The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claim appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate important facts, the expected need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fairer result. The court found that King’s claim was “likely to be of substance” because he alleged that defendants denied him prescribed medication and failed to provide treatment after his seizure. It also found that the other factors favored representation because King was incarcerated, the case could involve depositions and conflicting evidence, and the medical issues could be legally and factually complex.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn directed the clerk to seek pro bono counsel—that is, a volunteer lawyer—to enter a limited appearance for the purpose of conducting discovery. Counsel could also participate in settlement discussions. The court said it might later consider expanding counsel’s role to cover all purposes.

The order did not require any volunteer lawyer to accept the case. Counsel would not be required to respond to a dispositive motion unless the court expanded the representation or granted other appropriate relief. Unless expanded, the representation would end when discovery was completed and counsel filed a notice of completion. The clerk was also directed to mail a copy of the order to King.

The order addressed counsel and discovery only; it did not decide whether King would ultimately prevail on his civil-rights claim.