Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2021

Vasquez v. Clarkstown Police Officer

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:15-cv-08848
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentPro Se
In one sentence

In Vasquez v. Maloney, Judge Roman granted Vasquez’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel for her surviving Fourth Amendment claim.

Who this affects

Kim Vasquez’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel was granted; the defendants’ counsel must mail her the order and file proof of service.

What happened

In Vasquez v. Maloney, Kim Vasquez, who is representing herself, sued several law-enforcement officers under a federal civil-rights law, alleging an illegal search and detention. After an earlier ruling, the remaining claim appears to concern an unreasonable search and seizure and is headed toward trial.

Vasquez asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer to represent her. The court found that her surviving claim was likely substantial and that a lawyer could help clarify the issues and conduct the trial more effectively.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Vasquez’s request that the court seek volunteer counsel. The order explained that no lawyer was guaranteed to volunteer and that the case would continue at its normal pace while the court looked for counsel.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vasquez v. Clarkstown Police Officer · No. 7:15-cv-08848
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
May 20, 2021

Background

Kim Vasquez sued Detective Chris G. Maloney, Officer Victor Carabello, Detective Orlando Cruz, Officer Brian Dunne, Detective Brian Callahan, and Officer Thomas LaTorre under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. She alleged an illegal search and detention. The opinion states that the court had previously denied Vasquez’s motion to suppress and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Second Circuit affirmed that ruling. The opinion says the sole remaining claim appears to be a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search and seizure proceeding toward trial.

Request for Counsel

Vasquez expressed interest in having the court seek pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer attorney, in a July 15, 2020 letter and repeated that request during a May 20, 2021 conference. The court concluded that the claim surviving summary judgment was likely substantial. It also found that appointing—or, more precisely, requesting—counsel could lead to a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues and shaping examination at trial.

Ruling

The court GRANTS Vasquez’s application that it request pro bono counsel. The order explains that the court has no funds to retain lawyers in civil cases and relies on volunteers. It warns that a volunteer may not be found quickly, that no attorney is guaranteed to accept the case, and that the litigation will continue at a normal pace. If a lawyer volunteers, that lawyer will contact Vasquez directly, and Vasquez may decide whether to retain the lawyer. The defendants’ counsel was directed to mail a copy of the order to Vasquez and file proof of service.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.