Cannon v. New York City Police Department
- 1:15-cv-04579
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cannon v. New York City Police Department, the court directed the Pro Se Office to seek pro bono counsel and postponed a scheduled date.
Cannon, the self-represented petitioner seeking counsel, the Pro Se Office, and any volunteer lawyer who might agree to represent him.
What happened
Cannon, a petitioner representing himself, asked the Southern District of New York to appoint a lawyer under a federal law allowing counsel for people who cannot afford it. He said the case involved factual disputes, questioning witnesses, and difficulty investigating and presenting his claims.
Cannon stated that he had already been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, had not previously requested appointed counsel in that court, and lacked the knowledge and resources to litigate fully. The request also referred to his limited access to information and cited decisions about appointing counsel to self-represented litigants.
The court directed the Pro Se Office to seek volunteer counsel for Cannon and stated that no volunteer lawyer was guaranteed to become available. The court also postponed a scheduled January 22, 2021 date indefinitely. The judge is not identified in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Cannon v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:15-cv-04579
- Dec. 31, 2020
Background
Cannon, who was representing himself, submitted a request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He asserted that the issues in his case required written questions, motions, investigation, and cross-examination during an evidentiary proceeding. He also stated that he was inexperienced, had limited access to information, and lacked sufficient legal knowledge and resources to present the case fully.
Cannon represented that he had already been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees and that he had not previously applied to that court for appointed counsel. The request cited decisions discussing when a court may appoint a lawyer for a self-represented litigant, including when factual disputes or limited ability to investigate may make counsel useful.
Ruling
The order directs the Pro Se Office to seek pro bono counsel for Cannon. It explains that the court depends on volunteer lawyers and cannot guarantee that one will be available; any lawyer who agrees to take the case must notify Cannon and the court. The order also postpones a date scheduled for January 22, 2021 indefinitely. The provided text does not identify the judge or clearly show the full docket number. The court's text is partially illegible, so it is unclear whether the request itself was formally labeled granted or whether the order only directed the Pro Se Office to seek counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.