King v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-06945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In King v. City of New York, Judge Broderick directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Sharif King’s limited discovery work while denying fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Sharif King was eligible to receive an attempt at limited volunteer representation for depositions and possible settlement discussions, but the order did not guarantee that a lawyer would accept the matter. Any volunteer lawyer would have only the limited responsibilities described in the order.
What happened
In King v. The City of New York, Sharif King brought a claim under a federal civil-rights law, alleging constitutional violations. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and found that he was unable to afford a lawyer.
The court directed the Clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer for King, but only for conducting discovery, specifically depositions. The lawyer could also participate in settlement discussions, but would not be required to handle other parts of the case unless the court expanded the assignment. The court stated that a lawyer might not be found and that King should be prepared to continue without one.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also denied King’s fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order, finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether King’s underlying constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- King v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-06945
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
Sharif King asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations by the defendants. The court had granted King permission to proceed without paying court fees, so it found that he qualified as unable to afford counsel. King was incarcerated and said he faced logistical problems in conducting depositions of defendants.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may request that a lawyer volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, the court does not have to provide a lawyer and cannot appoint one by force. The court must consider whether the claim appears likely to have substance and whether factors such as the person’s ability to investigate facts, conduct questioning, present the case, and handle the legal issues support requesting volunteer counsel.
Court’s analysis and order
The court found that King’s claim was likely to have substance and that the other relevant factors favored requesting counsel. Because the case was at an early stage, the court directed the Clerk to attempt to locate volunteer counsel for a limited appearance focused on discovery, specifically conducting depositions. The volunteer lawyer could also participate in settlement discussions.
The lawyer would not be responsible for other aspects of King’s representation, including responding to a motion seeking to end the case, unless the court later expanded the assignment. The representation would end after discovery was completed and counsel filed a notice of completion. The court also explained that volunteer counsel might not be found and that no funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied King permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of King’s underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.