DeBlasio v. Nieves
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-09360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DeBlasio v. Nieves, Judge Wang granted in part the pro se plaintiff’s request for counsel, limiting assistance to discovery.
The pro se plaintiff was affected by the limited grant of counsel and the 60-day pause. The court’s Pro Se Office was directed to seek volunteer counsel, and potential volunteer attorneys could choose whether to accept the representation.
What happened
In DeBlasio v. Nieves, the pro se plaintiff asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The request concerned assistance in the ongoing case.
The court considered the legal standard for appointing counsel, including the strength of the claims, the plaintiff’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, whether lawyers were available, and the plaintiff’s ability to handle the case without help.
Judge Wang granted in part the request for counsel, limited to assistance with discovery. She directed the court’s Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer lawyer, paused matters for 60 days while looking for counsel, and explained that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case.
The detailed version
- DeBlasio v. Nieves · No. 1:18-cv-09360
- Analisa Torres
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
On December 18, 2020, the pro se plaintiff submitted an application asking the court to appoint counsel. The opinion identifies the plaintiff as Philip E. DeBLASIO and the defendants as Police Officer Nieves, et al.
Legal standard
The court stated that, before appointing counsel, a plaintiff must show that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success. The court also considers the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance.
Ruling
The court granted in part the plaintiff’s request for counsel, but only for the limited purpose of helping with discovery. The court directed its Pro Se Office to seek a limited-appearance volunteer lawyer for the plaintiff. It also stated that there were no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and that the court relied on volunteers. The court paused matters for 60 days to allow time to seek counsel, while explaining that a volunteer lawyer might not be found and that the plaintiff would otherwise proceed without a lawyer. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 67 and serve the order on the plaintiff.
Effect of the order
The order provided a limited opportunity for volunteer legal assistance during discovery; it did not appoint a specific lawyer. The plaintiff could decide whether to retain a volunteer lawyer who offered to take the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.