Brown v. City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-04632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Brown v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cave denied Paul Brown’s requests for volunteer counsel and discovery without prejudice.
Paul Brown’s requests for volunteer counsel and discovery were denied without prejudice; his underlying claims against the City of New York were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Brown v. City of New York, Paul Brown, who was representing himself, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer and to order the City of New York to produce COVID-related records, books, and videos. His lawsuit alleges that conditions at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island exposed him to an excessive risk of contracting COVID-19.
The court found that Brown had not shown specific efforts to find a lawyer himself. It also found that the case was still too early to decide whether his claims were likely to have merit or whether the issues were too complex for him to handle without counsel. The court separately found that his discovery request was premature because the required discovery steps had not yet occurred.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied both Brown’s renewed request for counsel and his motion to compel discovery without prejudice. The discovery request may be renewed at the appropriate time, and Brown may renew his request for counsel after showing efforts to find a lawyer and when the court can better assess his claims.
The detailed version
- Brown v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04632
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 5, 2021
Background
Paul Brown, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that officials at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island were deliberately indifferent to his risk of contracting COVID-19 while he was detained there. His allegations included failures to enforce social distancing, provide COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment, and comply with stated occupancy limits. He sought $10 million in damages.
Brown asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. He said that he had little knowledge of how to proceed and faced difficulties accessing telephones and obtaining money to make calls. He also moved to compel the City to produce COVID-related sheets, deputies’ and captains’ login books, and videos from the facility.
Counsel request
The court concluded that Brown could not afford private counsel, based on the earlier decision allowing him to proceed without paying the filing fee, and credited his statement that he lacked knowledge about how to proceed. But the court found that he had not identified any specific efforts to obtain a lawyer on his own. The court also concluded that the case was still at an early stage and that Brown had not made the required preliminary showing that his deliberate-indifference claim was likely to have substance or that the case involved unusually complex issues.
The court denied Brown’s renewed application for volunteer counsel. It stated that he could renew the request if he showed that he had tried to find counsel himself and at a later stage when the court could better evaluate the likely merit of his claims.
Discovery request
The court found that Brown’s motion to compel discovery was premature. Before asking the court to intervene in a discovery dispute, the parties were required to confer about a discovery plan, Brown was required to serve written discovery requests, and the parties were required to make good-faith efforts to resolve any dispute. The court stated that none of those steps appeared to have occurred.
The court denied Brown’s motion to compel discovery as premature and without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time. It stated that a separate order would schedule an initial case-management conference and establish a discovery schedule.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave’s order states that the renewed application for counsel and the motion to compel discovery were both DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the docket entries for those requests and mail Brown a copy of the order.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.