Chin v. Squire
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-03711
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Chin v. Squire, Judge Halpern granted Chin’s request for volunteer counsel and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
Wayne Chin, whose request for the court to seek volunteer counsel was granted, but who was not guaranteed representation and was denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Wayne Chin v. Co. P.T. Squire, et al., Chin asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer. He alleges that officials used excessive force, ignored serious medical needs, and retaliated against him after an assault at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
The court found that Chin was unable to afford a lawyer and that his claims were likely substantial. It also found that the case’s seriousness, the expected importance of cross-examination at trial, and the benefit of a lawyer helping present the case to a jury supported the request.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Chin’s application for the court to request counsel. The court warned that no lawyer was guaranteed because counsel must volunteer, and it denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Chin v. Squire · No. 7:20-cv-03711
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 3, 2022
Background
Wayne Chin filed an application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him in this civil-rights case. The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. Chin alleges excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and retaliation related to his grievance about an assault that occurred on May 9, 2017, while he was confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
The court had previously granted Chin permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Chin stated that his financial circumstances had not changed, so the court found that he remained unable to afford counsel.
Legal standard
In a civil case, the court generally cannot appoint and pay a lawyer for an indigent litigant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may instead request that a lawyer volunteer. The court must consider whether the claims appear likely to have substance and, if so, factors including the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the need for cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a lawyer would help produce a fairer result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Chin’s claims were “likely to be of substance.” It also found that the other relevant factors supported his application. The seriousness of the allegations, the parties’ decision to proceed to trial after discovery, and their decision not to file summary-judgment motions indicated that conflicting evidence and cross-examination would likely be important at trial. The court concluded that representation would improve and streamline Chin’s presentation of the case to a jury.
Ruling and effect
The court granted Chin’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel. This means the court will seek a volunteer lawyer; it does not guarantee that a lawyer will accept the case, and the court stated that the litigation will continue at its normal pace while a volunteer is sought. If no lawyer volunteers, Chin must be prepared to continue representing himself.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Chin permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was requested to mail Chin a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.