Cano v. Chisolm
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-01640
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cano v. Chisolm, Judge Schofield denied Cano’s request for volunteer counsel, allowing reconsideration for settlement or trial.
Christopher Hiram Cano, who requested volunteer counsel while proceeding without a lawyer; the ruling concerns whether the court would request an attorney to represent him.
What happened
In Cano v. Chisolm, Christopher Hiram Cano asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no right to a free lawyer and that requests for volunteer counsel are granted sparingly. It found that Cano’s filings did not currently show that his claim was sufficiently strong to justify requesting counsel.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the request, but stated that Cano could seek reconsideration for settlement or trial. The clerk was directed to mail the order and an earlier order to Cano, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Cano v. Chisolm · No. 1:19-cv-01640
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Christopher Hiram Cano filed an application for appointment of volunteer counsel. The opinion states that Cano was proceeding without a lawyer. It does not describe the factual or legal claims underlying the case.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot compel—an attorney to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, there is no general requirement that the court provide an indigent litigant with a lawyer. The court must consider whether the claim appears likely to have substance, along with factors such as the litigant’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and any special reason counsel would likely produce a fairer result.
Ruling
The request for appointment of volunteer counsel was DENIED. The court found that the papers filed in the action did not establish at that time that Cano’s claim was sufficiently meritorious to justify requesting volunteer counsel. The denial was without prejudice to reconsideration for representation during settlement discussions or at trial. The court stated that it would issue an order if a request for counsel became appropriate then. It also directed the clerk to mail Cano a copy of this order and the court’s September 3, 2019, order denying an earlier oral request without prejudice to renewal during settlement discussions or trial. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not decide the merits of Cano’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.