Johnson v. City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-09664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. City of New York, Judge Broderick requested limited volunteer counsel for discovery and a deposition, while denying free appeal status.
Glenn Johnson, who received an opportunity to obtain limited volunteer legal representation for discovery, his deposition, and possible settlement discussions, subject to a lawyer’s willingness to volunteer and the limits in the order.
What happened
In Johnson v. City of New York, Glenn Johnson brought federal and state claims arising from his allegation that he was physically assaulted while incarcerated. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees, establishing that he could not afford a lawyer.
The court found that Johnson’s claims appeared likely to have substance and that other factors supported limited representation. Those factors included an upcoming deposition and difficulties conducting discovery. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer lawyer to assist with discovery, the deposition, and possible settlement discussions.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick limited the lawyer’s role to those matters and denied free appeal status for this order. The court did not guarantee that a volunteer lawyer would accept the representation, and the lawyer’s representation would generally end after discovery.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09664
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 24, 2021
Background
Glenn Johnson asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law based on an alleged physical assault while he was incarcerated. The court had granted Johnson permission to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he qualified as indigent.
Johnson sought volunteer legal representation. The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether the claims appeared likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether representation would promote a fair result.
Reasoning
The court found that Johnson’s claims were “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other relevant factors favored representation. Johnson had an upcoming deposition and had experienced logistical difficulties conducting discovery despite pursuing his claims in good faith. The court concluded that a lawyer’s involvement could lead to a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues and shaping the questioning.
Ruling and Scope of Representation
The court granted limited volunteer representation by directing the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer for Johnson. The lawyer’s role would cover discovery, including representing Johnson at his upcoming deposition, and could include settlement discussions.
The representation would not extend to responding to a dispositive motion unless the court expanded the lawyer’s role. The lawyer could seek an extension of Johnson’s response deadline or an expansion of the representation if defendants filed such a motion. Without an expansion, the representation would end when discovery was completed. The lawyer would have no further obligations after filing a notice of completion.
The court also stated that volunteer lawyers could seek reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court’s Pro Bono Fund. It warned that there might be a lengthy wait for a volunteer and that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case. Finally, the court denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 31 and mail Johnson a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.