Falls v. Pitt
- Andrew Krause
- 7:16-cv-08863
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Falls v. Pitt, Judge Karas granted reconsideration and requested volunteer counsel to represent Falls at trial.
Raiquan K. Falls received a request for the court to locate volunteer counsel for his upcoming trial; the defendants remain parties to the underlying civil-rights case.
What happened
In Falls v. Pitt, Raiquan K. Falls asked the court to reconsider an earlier denial of his request for free volunteer counsel. His civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was proceeding to trial after surviving the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
The court found that Falls qualified as unable to afford counsel and that his claims were likely substantial. It also found that a lawyer would help with jury selection, witness questioning, medical evidence, and the complexities of trial.
Judge Karas granted Falls’s reconsideration motion and his renewed request for counsel. The clerk was directed to try to locate a volunteer lawyer, but the court warned that representation was not guaranteed and denied free-counsel status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Falls v. Pitt · No. 7:16-cv-08863
- Andrew Krause
- May 6, 2022
Background
Raiquan K. Falls brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against seven members of the Newburgh Police Department and three members of the staff at Saint Luke’s Cornwall Hospital. He alleges civil-rights violations arising from his arrest and later treatment while in police custody.
Falls had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He previously sought volunteer counsel twice, and the court denied both requests without prejudice. In 2022, he moved for reconsideration of the denial of his second request. The court had previously stated that it could reconsider counsel if the case proceeded to trial. The case was then proceeding toward a jury trial.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that an attorney volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court does not have to provide a lawyer and cannot require an attorney to accept the representation. Instead, it may ask a volunteer lawyer to take the case.
The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, Falls qualified as unable to afford counsel because the court had granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court also found that his claims were likely substantial because they had survived the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The court further found that the other factors favored counsel. A lawyer could help Falls select a jury, question witnesses, handle conflicting evidence, and address medical records and medical experts relevant to liability and damages. Counsel could also help manage trial-related motions and other complex issues.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Falls’s Motion for Reconsideration and also granted his Second Application for volunteer counsel. The clerk was directed to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney to represent Falls at the upcoming trial, which the opinion said was likely to occur in late July 2022.
The court explained that no public funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases and that any representation depended on a volunteer attorney accepting the matter. The representation described in the order would generally end when the trial was completed, unless its scope was expanded. The court also stated that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Falls permission to proceed without paying appeal fees for that appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.