Ortiz v. Police Department of the 25th Precinct
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-03522
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Ortiz v. Police Department of the 25th Precinct: Judge Aaron directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for Ortiz’s civil-rights case.
Robert Ortiz receives a request for the clerk to seek volunteer counsel, but no lawyer is guaranteed to represent him. The defendants remain parties to the underlying civil-rights lawsuit, whose merits were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Robert Ortiz v. Police Department of the 25th Precinct, the court considered Ortiz’s request for a volunteer lawyer. Ortiz, who is incarcerated, alleges that four New York City police detectives used excessive force and unlawfully searched him during a 2017 arrest.
The court found that Ortiz’s claims seemed likely to have substance and that his incarceration limited his ability to investigate facts and present his case. It directed the clerk to try to locate a volunteer lawyer, but explained that no lawyer is guaranteed to take the case and that the lawsuit would continue normally.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron also denied Ortiz’s fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order, finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether Ortiz’s underlying claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Police Department of the 25th Precinct · No. 1:19-cv-03522
- Lewis Liman
- May 27, 2021
Background
Robert Ortiz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that four current or former New York City Police Department detectives used excessive force and subjected him to an unlawful search during his August 18, 2017 arrest. Ortiz was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility when the order was issued. An administrative trial involving three of the defendants—Cordova, Low, and Reynoso—had taken place in March and April 2021.
Ortiz had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He previously asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer, but the court denied that request while allowing him to renew it later. In this order, the court reconsidered the request on its own initiative.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, the court cannot require a lawyer to represent the litigant or provide funds to pay the lawyer. The court applied factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the claims appear likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and whether a lawyer would promote a fairer result.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that Ortiz’s claims seemed likely to have substance, based on the administrative trial and the filings in the civil case. It also found that the relevant factors favored requesting counsel, particularly because Ortiz’s incarceration limited his ability to investigate the facts and present his case. The court therefore directed the clerk to attempt to locate pro bono counsel—meaning a lawyer willing to volunteer—to represent Ortiz.
The court cautioned that volunteer lawyers are scarce, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Ortiz should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Ortiz’s fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed representation and appeal-related filing status; it did not decide the merits of Ortiz’s excessive-force or unlawful-search claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.