Patterson v. Patterson
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02552
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Patterson v. Patterson, Judge Halpern denied without prejudice the self-represented plaintiff’s request for volunteer counsel.
Shawn J. Patterson, who requested volunteer counsel while representing himself in his federal civil-rights case.
What happened
In Patterson v. Patterson, Shawn J. Patterson asked the court to request an attorney to help him with his case. He had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees and was representing himself.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by removing his dogs from his home, including under the Fourth Amendment. The court said it could not determine whether the claim was likely to have enough substance to warrant counsel. It also found that Shawn J. Patterson had already handled discovery and court conferences, had not shown that he could not investigate the facts, had not explained why counsel would lead to a fairer result, and had not shown efforts to find an attorney.
Judge Halpern denied the request for volunteer counsel without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The court also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Patterson v. Patterson · No. 7:20-cv-02552
- Philip Halpern
- May 24, 2021
Background
Shawn J. Patterson filed a motion asking for an attorney to “co-assist” him. The court treated the motion as an application for the court to request volunteer counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court had previously granted Patterson permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion states that he was representing himself.
Patterson’s complaint asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against certain state actors for violations of constitutional rights. He alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by removing his dogs from his home, including in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a lawyer and that courts may only request, rather than appoint, a volunteer attorney. Requests for counsel must be granted sparingly. Under the governing factors, a court first considers whether the person is unable to afford counsel and whether the claim appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court also considers the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the likely need for cross-examination, and any special reason counsel would likely produce a fairer result.
The court said it could not determine at that stage whether Patterson’s claim was likely to have substance. It also found that the other factors weighed against granting the request. Patterson had litigated the case through discovery and represented himself at conferences with the court. He had not indicated that he was unable to investigate the important facts, had not identified a reason that counsel would be more likely to produce a fair result, and had not shown efforts to retain counsel. The court concluded that counsel at that stage would not lead to a quicker and fairer result by clarifying the issues or improving the presentation of evidence.
Ruling
Judge Halpern denied Patterson’s motion for volunteer counsel without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.