Lugo v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06086
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lugo v. City of New York, Judge Broderick granted a discovery extension but denied without prejudice Lugo’s request for appointed counsel.
Wilson Lugo, the pro se plaintiff, and the defendants in his lawsuit, including the City of New York and the named and unidentified police officers.
What happened
Lugo v. The City of New York concerns Wilson Lugo’s civil-rights lawsuit against the City of New York, three named police officers, and four or five unidentified police officers. Lugo asked for more time to provide discovery and for a volunteer lawyer to help with discovery and other parts of the case.
The court granted more time because Lugo’s access to the prison law library was limited by COVID-19 restrictions. The court declined to appoint counsel because it needed a more developed record to decide whether Lugo’s claims had enough substance or likelihood of success to justify that assistance.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Lugo’s motion for an extension of time and denied his application for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewing it later, including after discovery closes.
The detailed version
- Lugo v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06086
- Vernon Broderick
- Nov. 17, 2021
Background
Wilson Lugo brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York, three named New York City police officers, and four or five unidentified New York City police officers. The order addresses two motions by Lugo: a request for an extension of time to provide discovery to the defendants and a request for appointment of volunteer counsel to help him answer interrogatories and handle other discovery matters.
Extension of Time
The court granted Lugo’s motion for an extension of time. Lugo stated that COVID-19 restrictions limited his access to the prison law library. The court found that this was a sound reason for granting the extension. The order does not state the length of the extension or identify a new deadline.
Appointment of Counsel
The court explained that requests for appointed counsel require consideration of several factors, including the apparent merits of the claim, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without assistance. As a threshold matter, Lugo had to show that his claim had substance or a likelihood of success. The court determined that a more fully developed record was needed before it could decide whether Lugo’s chances of success justified appointing counsel.
Ruling
The court denied Lugo’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal when a potentially meritorious claim could be demonstrated, including after discovery closes. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Lugo, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.