Washington v. Downstate Administrative Nurse

Background

Jeremiah D. Walker Washington, Jr. is incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility and is representing himself in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants violated his rights by failing to inform him about potential side effects of medications prescribed for his mental-health conditions. He alleges that the medications caused him to develop gynecomastia. Washington asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. He reported contacting two attorneys: one said she could not take the case, and the other did not respond.

Legal standard

The court explained that people generally do not have a constitutional right to a lawyer in civil cases, but a federal statute allows a court to appoint counsel for an indigent party in appropriate circumstances. The court applied a two-step test. First, it considered whether Washington’s position appeared to have some likelihood of merit. If that threshold was met, the court would consider additional factors, including his ability to investigate facts, present the case, and handle the legal issues, as well as whether a disability or another special circumstance made appointed counsel more likely to produce a fair result. The court also noted that a plaintiff must show an inability to obtain counsel before appointment will be considered.

Court’s analysis

For purposes of deciding the request for counsel, the court interpreted Washington’s complaint liberally and assumed without deciding that it met the initial likelihood-of-merit threshold. The court nevertheless found that the other factors did not support appointing counsel. Washington’s submissions had been filed carefully and stated relevant facts and arguments adequately. The court found that the claims were not too complex or unusual for him to handle at that stage. It also explained that a lack of legal knowledge and difficulty reaching the law library, by themselves, did not justify appointing counsel.

Washington said that he was in a Special Needs Unit and referred to his mental-health challenges. The court found that he had not described the nature or extent of his disability and had submitted no supporting medical evidence showing that his condition permanently prevented him from pursuing the case. The court also found that his search for counsel was not exhaustive because he had not, for example, contacted bar associations, legal-aid societies, or other organizations offering free legal assistance. The opinion did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

Disposition

The court denied Washington’s request for assignment of counsel without prejudice. It stated that he may renew the request and provide additional information about his circumstances. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail Washington a copy of the order.