Lattner v. Caliendo-Solomon
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-09508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lattner v. Caliendo-Solomon, Judge Gardephe denied without prejudice Lattner’s request for appointed counsel and directed service on the defendants.
The order affects pro se plaintiff Rasheen Tabor Lattner, who may renew his request for appointed counsel later and will receive assistance from the U.S. Marshals Service in serving Hope Caliendo-Solomon and the New York City Transit Authority. The defendants are to be served so the case can proceed.
What happened
Lattner v. Caliendo-Solomon is an employment-discrimination case brought by pro se plaintiff Rasheen Tabor Lattner against the New York City Transit Authority and Hope Caliendo-Solomon. Lattner alleges disability and sex discrimination under federal, state, and city laws.
Lattner asked the court to appoint free legal counsel for the case. The court said it was too early to determine whether the case had merit, denied the request for counsel for all purposes without prejudice, and said it would seek pro bono counsel for mediation.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe also directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the paperwork needed for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Caliendo-Solomon and the Transit Authority. The order required Lattner to notify the court of any address change and stated that the case could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
The detailed version
- Lattner v. Caliendo-Solomon · No. 1:20-cv-09508
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 29, 2020
Background
Rasheen Tabor Lattner, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Hope Caliendo-Solomon and the New York City Transit Authority in an employment-discrimination action. The opinion says that Lattner asserted, among other claims, disability and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
Lattner asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. The court applied the factors used for such requests, including the apparent merit of the claims, Lattner’s ability to pay, his efforts to find a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and his ability to handle the case without assistance.
Ruling on Counsel
The court ruled that the case was at too early a stage to determine whether it was meritorious. It therefore denied without prejudice Lattner’s request for counsel for all purposes. “Without prejudice” means the request may be made again later. The court said Lattner could seek appointment of counsel in the future when the merits became clearer.
The court also stated that it would seek pro bono counsel to represent Lattner for purposes of mediation. The order did not decide the merits of Lattner’s discrimination claims.
Service of Process
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Hope Caliendo-Solomon and the New York City Transit Authority, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms with the defendants’ addresses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service so it could serve the defendants.
The court instructed Lattner to notify it in writing if his address changed and stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe concluded that Lattner’s application for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and to arrange for service on the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.