Lithgow v. Keyser
- Alison Nathan
- 1:21-cv-00998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lithgow v. Keyser, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied Bismarck Lithgow’s request for appointed counsel because the record did not yet justify it.
Bismarck Lithgow’s request for appointed counsel was denied at that time, although the court left open the possibility of seeking counsel later.
What happened
Lithgow v. Keyser involved Bismarck Lithgow’s request for a lawyer to be appointed in his case. The opinion identifies Lithgow as representing himself and William F. Keyser as the respondent.
The court denied the request because the filings did not yet show that Lithgow’s claims were substantial enough to justify seeking counsel. The court also said the case did not then appear so difficult that Lithgow could not address the relevant facts or issues.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the motion but stated that the court could seek to appoint counsel later if future review showed that appointment was warranted.
The detailed version
- Lithgow v. Keyser · No. 1:21-cv-00998
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Bismarck Lithgow, who was proceeding without a lawyer, moved for appointment of counsel. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the nature of the case beyond identifying Lithgow as the petitioner and William F. Keyser as the respondent.
Analysis
The court applied the factors from Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co. The court concluded that Lithgow’s motion and the other papers filed in the case did not, at that time, demonstrate that his claims were likely to be substantial enough to warrant seeking appointed counsel. The court also determined that the case did not then appear to be so difficult that Lithgow would be unable to address relevant facts or other issues likely to arise.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Lithgow’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court stated that it could seek appointment of counsel without another request from Lithgow if later review showed that appointment was warranted. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Lithgow a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.