Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 24, 2022

Young v. Carter

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-08973
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Young v. Carter, Judge Vyskocil denied Jason Young’s counsel request without prejudice because he had not shown efforts to find a lawyer.

Who this affects

Jason Young’s request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice. The other detainees mentioned in his application were not parties to this case and were not represented by Young.

What happened

In Young v. Carter, Jason Young asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him and 27 other detainees in a proposed class action. The court explained that those detainees were not parties to Young’s case, and that Young could represent only himself.

The court had allowed Young to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he was unable to afford counsel. But his application did not describe any efforts to find a lawyer; it only said that he was incarcerated. The court also said that, at this early stage, it could not determine whether his claims were likely to have substance or whether the issues were especially complex.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Young’s application for the Court to request volunteer counsel without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the application and mail the order to Young.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Young v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-08973
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 24, 2022

Background

Jason Young, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to request volunteer counsel for him and “all twenty seven detainees” as part of a proposed class action. The opinion explains that an earlier related case filed on behalf of Young and other detainees was separated into individual civil actions because each person had unique circumstances and could appear only on that person’s own behalf. Young’s application was considered only as it applied to him.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot require or pay for—a volunteer lawyer to represent a person unable to afford counsel in a civil case. Courts must consider whether the claim appears likely to have substance and, if that threshold is met, factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, present the case, and handle complex legal issues. Courts also consider the person’s efforts to obtain counsel.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that Young had shown indigence because it had granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees. However, his counsel application did not provide any information about efforts to obtain a lawyer; it only stated that he was incarcerated. The court also said that, at this stage, it could not determine whether Young’s position was likely to have substance or whether particularly complex issues required counsel.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice Young’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The clerk was asked to terminate the application at ECF No. 15 and mail a copy of the order to Young at the address on record.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.