Hammock v. Rizzuto

Background

Jesse Hammock filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law, alleging that he was demoted from his prison job because his supervisors were hostile toward his religion. He named Anthony Rizzuto and John Papavisiliou as defendants. Hammock had been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, and the court noted that he remained imprisoned.

Hammock previously sought counsel, but the court denied that request while allowing him to renew it. He then filed the application addressed in this order. The court also noted that it had just denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Reasoning

The court applied the standard governing requests for volunteer lawyers in civil cases. A person must first show financial inability to afford counsel and that the claim appears likely to have substance. The court then considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, the importance of conflicting evidence and witness credibility, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fairer result.

The court found that Hammock’s claim was likely to have substance. It cited specific allegations that Papavisiliou showed blatant bias toward the Nation of Islam and that Rizzuto tolerated that bias and considered Papavisiliou’s views when demoting Hammock. The court also found that the remaining factors favored counsel because Hammock was incarcerated, would have limited ability to investigate facts and take depositions, and the credibility of the defendants’ stated reasons for the demotion would be important.

Ruling

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Hammock’s application for the court to request counsel. The court clarified that it does not have funds to pay a lawyer in a civil case and can only seek a volunteer attorney. It warned that a lawyer might not volunteer and that the case would continue at its normal pace; Hammock therefore remained responsible for being prepared to proceed without counsel. If a lawyer volunteers, that lawyer will contact Hammock, and Hammock may decide whether to retain the lawyer.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Hammock permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. This order addressed counsel and appeal-fee status; it did not decide the underlying religious-discrimination claim.