Herbert v. Ginty
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-06348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Herbert v. Ginty, Judge Halpern denied Herbert’s third request for a free lawyer without prejudice.
Jeremiah F. Herbert’s request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the court did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
What happened
In Herbert v. Ginty, Jeremiah F. Herbert asked the court for a lawyer to represent him without charge. It was his third such request.
The court said the case’s procedural posture had not changed significantly since it denied his earlier requests. A motion to dismiss was pending, and the court said it would address that motion later.
Judge Halpern denied Herbert’s application without prejudice, allowing him to renew the request at a later stage of the case. The clerk was directed to mail Herbert the order and close the application on the electronic docket.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. Ginty · No. 7:20-cv-06348
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
Jeremiah F. Herbert filed a third application for pro bono counsel, meaning a request for a lawyer to represent him without charge. Defendants opposed the application. Herbert’s two earlier requests had been denied after the court considered the factors described in Hodge v. Police Officers and found that he had not shown that appointing counsel was appropriate or that the request was no longer premature.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the procedural posture of the case had not changed significantly since the earlier denials. The court noted that a motion to dismiss was pending and stated that it would address that motion in due course. The opinion did not decide that motion or the underlying claims.
Ruling
The court denied Herbert’s third application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing the request at a later stage of the litigation. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Herbert and terminate the application from the electronic docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.