Genao v. City of New York

Background

Gabino Genao, a pretrial detainee representing himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. He alleges that New York City Department of Correction officers placed him in a dangerous housing situation, that he was then placed in restrictive housing for about 200 days, and that Dr. Ho was deliberately indifferent to his mental-health condition and history of suicidal acts. He seeks money damages and declaratory relief.

The order addressed two matters during discovery, the pretrial process for exchanging information and evidence. First, Genao applied for a volunteer lawyer. Second, the defendants moved to compel, meaning they asked the court to order Genao to respond to their interrogatories and requests for documents. The defendants represented that his responses were due December 20, 2021. The court had previously extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 16, 2022, and Genao did not respond to the motion to compel by the court’s March 18, 2022 deadline.

Request for Volunteer Counsel

The court explained that a person who cannot afford a lawyer generally has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Under the federal statute governing people who cannot afford court costs, the court may request that a lawyer volunteer, but it cannot require a lawyer to take the case. Courts consider factors including the apparent strength of the claims, the person’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, access to relevant facts, and ability to handle the case without counsel. The apparent strength of the claims receives the most attention, although the person need only make an initial showing that the claims may have merit.

The court found that Genao’s approved status for proceeding without paying court fees showed that he could not afford private counsel. It found, however, that his application did not describe specific efforts to obtain a lawyer, such as how many lawyers he contacted. The court also concluded that the case was still too early for it to determine whether his claims were likely to have substance. The court therefore denied the Application without prejudice, allowing Genao to renew the request if he can show efforts to find counsel and when the court has more information about the likely strength of his claims.

Motion to Compel

The court granted the defendants’ Motion to Compel to the extent that it extended Genao’s deadline to serve responses to the discovery requests until Friday, April 29, 2022, if those responses remained outstanding. The court stated that further extensions were unlikely. It cautioned that Genao’s self-represented status did not excuse compliance with discovery orders and that persistent noncompliance could result in sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice. The court did not state that dismissal was being entered in this order.

Disposition

The Application was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The defendants’ Motion to Compel was GRANTED to the extent that Genao was directed to respond to the discovery demands by April 29, 2022. The order did not resolve the merits of Genao’s underlying claims.