Chin v. Squire

Background

Wayne Chin filed an application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The underlying complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and retaliation for grieving an assault that allegedly occurred on May 9, 2017, while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility.

Chin had previously been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee because of his financial circumstances. He stated that his financial status had not changed, so the court found that he qualified as financially unable to afford counsel. Chin argued that he needed a lawyer because he lacked legal knowledge, had an eleventh-grade education, was 65, and took medications that could affect his ability to meet discovery deadlines. His application also stated that he had contacted attorneys and that one was reviewing the complaint but had not decided whether to accept the case.

Legal standard

In a civil case, the court is not required to provide a lawyer to a person who cannot afford one. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request that a lawyer volunteer to represent such a person, but it cannot require or pay the lawyer. Courts are instructed to grant these requests sparingly.

The court first considers whether the applicant is financially unable to afford counsel and whether the claims appear likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, whether conflicting evidence will require cross-examination, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether special circumstances make a lawyer more likely to produce a fair result.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that, at this early stage, there was no indication that Chin’s position appeared likely to have substance or that the case involved particularly complex issues requiring volunteer counsel. The court also could not determine that Chin was unable to handle the case without assistance, while recognizing that this assessment could change as the case continued. The court considered Chin’s efforts to find a lawyer, including the attorney who was still reviewing his complaint, but found no circumstances warranting a request for pro bono counsel at that time.

Disposition

The court denied Chin’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The Clerk was directed to mail Chin a copy of the order. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied financially assisted status for purposes of an appeal.