Williams v. Barometre

Background

Ozan Williams brought a self-represented lawsuit against Superintendent Delta Barometre and the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying adequate medical care for hearing loss, including by refusing to repair or improve his hearing aids. He sought an order requiring relief. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

Williams later asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The opinion explains that there is no automatic constitutional right to a lawyer in a civil case, but federal law allows a court to appoint counsel for a person who cannot afford one. The court applied the three-step framework used in the Second Circuit: whether the person made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel, whether the claims appear likely to have some merit, and whether practical factors favor appointment.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Williams satisfied the effort requirement. He had contacted the Legal Aid Society about his hearing-aid repairs in 2016 and 2017 and had directly sought individual counsel in 2018. Although the effort was not exhaustive, the court considered it reasonably diligent under the circumstances, including his limited ability to contact lawyers while incarcerated.

The court also found that Williams’s claims were not so doubtful that appointing counsel was unwarranted. Reading his self-represented complaint broadly, the court identified two possible theories:

- An Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. This requires showing both that the medical problem or deprivation was sufficiently serious and that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety. - A Title II claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The court explained that such a claim generally requires showing that the plaintiff is a qualified person with a disability, that the defendants are covered by the statute, and that the plaintiff was denied participation in or the benefits of services, programs, or activities because of the disability.

The court acknowledged that letters and reports showed Williams received medical attention from a primary-care provider and an audiology specialist, and that the specialist described his hearing loss as “non-significant.” But the court found significance in Williams’s repeated requests for improved hearing aids and two inmate misbehavior reports from March 2, 2019, and June 11, 2019. Those reports suggested that he may not have moved toward the cell door or immediately followed verbal orders during a standing count because of his hearing loss. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly suggested either a sufficiently serious deprivation or deliberate indifference, and also plausibly suggested that the accommodations provided may not have been effective enough for him to comply with ordinary facility procedures.

Finally, the court found that practical considerations favored appointing counsel. Williams’s incarceration would likely limit his ability to investigate and present important facts. The court also said that medical expertise might be needed to address the nature and severity of his hearing loss, and that the legal issues concerning deliberate indifference to medical needs could be complex.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Williams’s application for assignment of counsel. The Clerk was directed to mail Williams a copy of the order. The order addressed only whether counsel should be appointed; it did not resolve the ultimate merits of Williams’s medical-care or disability claims.