Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-03347
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Judge Liman granted Williams’s application to request volunteer counsel and denied his request to appeal without paying filing fees.
Alexander Williams received an order granting his application for the court to request volunteer counsel, but the court denied him permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The defendants remained involved in the surviving retaliation claims, and the detention facility was ordered to produce Williams for the scheduled telephone conference.
What happened
In Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections, Alexander Williams, who was representing himself, sued New York City and sixteen Department of Corrections employees. He alleged that they violated his constitutional rights during his pretrial detention, including by interfering with mail and court access, retaliating against him, using excessive force, and disregarding his medical needs.
Most of Williams’s claims had already been resolved on summary judgment, a decision made when the court finds no genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. The remaining claims alleged that Captain Bernard Mathis and C.O. Wells retaliated against Williams for filing grievances and lawsuits. The court had found that factual disputes remained about whether the defendants took adverse actions against him and whether those actions were retaliatory.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Williams’s application for the court to request a volunteer lawyer. The judge found that Williams was financially unable to afford counsel, that his remaining claims were likely substantial, and that his detention and the expected need to question witnesses made counsel appropriate. The court also denied Williams’s status to appeal without paying filing fees, scheduled a case-management conference, and ordered that Williams be brought to a telephone for that conference.
The detailed version
- Williams v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-03347
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 14, 2022
Background
Alexander Williams brought a civil-rights action under Section 1983 against the City of New York and sixteen individual defendants from the New York City Department of Corrections. He alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights during his pretrial incarceration at the Manhattan Detention Complex. The allegations included mail tampering or interference, denial of access to the courts, retaliation, excessive force, and deliberate indifference to medical needs. Williams was proceeding without a lawyer.
On February 14, 2022, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied Williams’s motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, except as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against Captain Bernard Mathis and C.O. Wells.
Remaining Claims
Williams alleged that Mathis and Wells retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits concerning officers at the Manhattan Detention Complex. The court had concluded that factual disputes remained about two alleged adverse actions: Wells’s alleged participation in a cell search during which Williams’s legal documents were taken, and Mathis’s alleged threats that Williams’s stay at the facility would become difficult and that Mathis would stop sending or receiving Williams’s mail unless Williams removed Mathis from the civil complaint.
The court also found factual disputes concerning causation. The timing of the alleged actions in relation to Williams’s grievances and lawsuits, along with other circumstances described in the opinion, could support an inference of retaliatory motive.
Request for Volunteer Counsel
The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a lawyer paid for by the court. Although the court cannot appoint a lawyer, it may request that a lawyer volunteer. Courts make such requests sparingly because civil representation depends on limited volunteer resources.
Under the factors identified by the Court of Appeals, a litigant must first show financial inability to afford counsel and that the claims appear likely to have substance. The court then considers factors such as the litigant’s ability to investigate facts, the likely need to question witnesses, the ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
The court had already allowed Williams to proceed without paying court fees, so it found no need for an additional showing that he could not afford counsel. Because his retaliation claims had survived the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, the court found that they were likely to have substance. The court also found that Williams’s detention at the George R. Vierno Center limited his ability to investigate the facts and that questioning witnesses at trial appeared likely to be important. Counsel could assist with jury selection, questioning witnesses, and presenting the case.
Disposition
The court granted Williams’s application for the court to request volunteer counsel. It warned that no funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases, that finding a volunteer could take time, and that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case. Williams was to be prepared to continue representing himself.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. It scheduled a telephone case-management conference for July 27, 2022, and ordered the official in charge of the George R. Vierno Center to produce Williams at a suitable location with a telephone for that conference.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.