Abbas v. Tate
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-03636
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Abbas v. Tate, Judge Koeltl directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Abbas’s limited settlement discussions.
Samie Abbas, who received a request for volunteer counsel limited to settlement discussions; Correction Officer Tate, whose alleged use of excessive force is the subject of Abbas’s § 1983 claim; and any volunteer lawyer who accepts the limited representation.
What happened
In Abbas v. Tate, Samie Abbas alleges that Correction Officer Tate used excessive force against him while he was confined on Rikers Island. Abbas had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees because he could not afford them.
The court found that Abbas’s claim was likely substantial and that a lawyer could help make settlement discussions quicker and fairer. It directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for that limited purpose, but did not guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer.
Judge John G. Koeltl said the lawyer’s representation would end after settlement discussions unless the court expanded its scope. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Abbas v. Tate · No. 1:20-cv-03636
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
Samie Abbas sued Correction Officer Tate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. Abbas alleged that Tate used excessive force against him on June 20, 2017, while Abbas was confined in the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island.
The court had granted Abbas permission to proceed without paying filing fees after finding that he was unable to afford them. Abbas therefore qualified as indigent under the statute governing requests for volunteer legal representation in civil cases.
Legal standard
The court explained that in civil cases it may request—but cannot require—the services of a volunteer lawyer. It must use that resource sparingly. Before requesting counsel, the court considers whether the person is indigent and whether the claim appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court may also consider the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to obtain counsel, and whether a lawyer would be more likely to produce a fair result.
Ruling
The court found that Abbas’s claim was “likely to be of substance” and that a lawyer’s involvement would help produce a quicker and fairer result by focusing the issues and shaping questioning. Because the case was at an early stage, the court directed the Clerk of Court to seek volunteer counsel for the limited purpose of participating in settlement discussions.
The requested lawyer would not be responsible for other aspects of Abbas’s representation. Unless the court expanded the lawyer’s role, the representation would end after settlement discussions. The order also stated that volunteer counsel could seek reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court’s Pro Bono Fund.
The court warned that there might be a long delay before a volunteer became available, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Abbas should be prepared to continue without a lawyer. Abbas could notify the court by April 2, 2021, if he did not want volunteer counsel. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.