Darley v. United States of America
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-00714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Darley v. United States, Judge Halpern ordered service but denied Darley’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Nicholas Darley, the United States, the eight individually named defendants, the court clerk, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
What happened
Nicholas Darley sued the United States and eight individuals, bringing claims related to the Federal Tort Claims Act and seeking damages and court orders. He represented himself and was incarcerated when he filed the case.
Because Darley was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee up front, the court ordered the clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued.
Judge Halpern denied Darley’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice, because the case was too early for the court to evaluate its merits. The court said Darley could apply later for the court to request a volunteer lawyer, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Darley v. United States of America · No. 7:22-cv-00714
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Nicholas Darley, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York, filed this action without a lawyer. The opinion states that he asserted claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and sought damages and injunctive relief. The court also construed the complaint as asserting additional damages claims under Bivens and claims for injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the statute providing mandamus relief, or the statute providing habeas relief.
Darley named the United States and eight individuals connected with health services or administration at the facility: Dr. Linley, Vander Hey-Wright, Thomas-Walsh, Dr. McNutt, Deez, Walls, Maldonado, and LeMasters. The court had previously allowed Darley to proceed without paying the filing fee up front. He also moved for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would volunteer to represent him.
Service of the Defendants
The court directed service of the complaint. Because Darley was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee up front, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued, rather than measuring the period from the filing of the complaint.
The clerk was directed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, identify service on the United States where required, and give the Marshals Service the documents needed to serve the summonses and complaint. Darley was instructed to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Motion for Pro Bono Counsel
The court denied Darley’s motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice to his filing a later application asking the court to request volunteer counsel. The court explained that the relevant considerations include the apparent merits of the case, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without a lawyer. The court concluded that the case was too early for it to assess the merits.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the clerk to issue the summonses and arrange for service through the U.S. Marshals Service. He denied Darley’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide the merits of Darley’s underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.