Booker v. NYS DOCCS
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-02355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Booker v. Sefman, Judge Roman denied Booker’s counsel request without prejudice and denied his renewed settlement motion.
Diquan Booker’s requests for volunteer counsel and court involvement in settlement were denied; his underlying civil-rights action against Sergeant Sefman was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Booker v. Sefman, Diquan Booker, representing himself in a constitutional-rights lawsuit, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer and renewed a request about settlement. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court denied the lawyer request because the case was still at an early stage: the defendant had not responded and discovery had not begun. Booker may renew the request later. The court also denied the settlement motion, explaining that settlement requests should be directed to the defendant’s lawyer rather than the court.
Judge Roman denied the appointment-of-counsel motion without prejudice and denied the renewed settlement motion. The order also allowed Booker to request more time if limited access to legal resources interfered with prosecuting the case.
The detailed version
- Booker v. NYS DOCCS · No. 7:22-cv-02355
- Nelson Roman
- June 7, 2022
Background
Diquan Booker filed a self-represented civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Sefman. The court had previously allowed Booker to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Booker later applied for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him, and filed a renewed motion concerning settlement.
Appointment of Counsel
The court denied Booker’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, it generally cannot require a lawyer to represent an indigent person in a civil case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, it may ask attorneys on the court’s volunteer panel to represent an eligible litigant.
Applying the standards for appointing counsel in self-represented cases, the court found that Booker had not shown at this early stage that his position was likely to have legal substance. The defendant had not yet responded to the complaint, and discovery had not taken place. The court also stated that Booker could request extensions of time if limited access to the law library or other resources interfered with his ability to pursue the case.
Settlement Motion
The court denied Booker’s renewed settlement motion. It explained that motions asking the court to discuss settlement are improper because the defendant was still being served and the defendant’s lawyer had not appeared. Requests to discuss possible settlement were to be directed to the defendant’s counsel rather than to the court.
Disposition
The conclusion states that the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel was DENIED, without prejudice to renew at a later date, and that Booker’s renewed settlement motion was DENIED. Earlier in the order, the court described the settlement motion as denied without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate both motions, mail Booker a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.