Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-02944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films, Judge Cott denied Holland’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because the record did not show likely merit.
Cory Darnell Holland, Sr.’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not resolve his underlying claims against Lions Gate Entertainment and Films or the other defendants.
What happened
In Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films, Cory Darnell Holland, Sr., who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer in his civil case.
The court said it could not pay for a lawyer in a civil case or require one to work without pay. It denied Holland’s request without prejudice because the current record did not show that his claims were substantial or likely to succeed. The court directed him to seek help from the court’s Pro Se Office and continue seeking a private lawyer.
Judge James L. Cott issued the order on May 11, 2021. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mark it as denied without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Holland v. Lions Gate Entertainment and Films · No. 1:21-cv-02944
- Analisa Torres
- May 11, 2021
Background
Pro se plaintiff Cory Darnell Holland, Sr. moved for appointment of counsel on May 7, 2021. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against Lions Gate Entertainment and Films or the other defendants.
Legal standard
The court explained that it does not have a budget to pay appointed counsel in civil cases and cannot require a lawyer to serve without pay. Before considering factors such as a litigant’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason supporting appointment, the court requires a threshold showing that the claims have some likelihood of merit.
Ruling
The court denied Holland’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice because, based on the current record, it could not conclude that his claims were substantial or that he was likely to succeed on the merits. The court stated that Holland should work with the court’s Pro Se Office for additional help and continue seeking private counsel. The clerk was directed to close docket entry number 9 and mark it as denied without prejudice.
Effect
The ruling concerns only Holland’s request for appointed counsel. The opinion does not state that the underlying claims were resolved. Because the denial was without prejudice, the order does not bar Holland from renewing the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.