Caldwell v. City of New York
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:21-cv-06560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Caldwell v. City of New York, Judge Aaron granted pro bono counsel but denied Caldwell’s request to pause the case.
Emmett Caldwell may receive assistance from a volunteer attorney, but no attorney is guaranteed and the case will continue while one is sought. The ruling did not decide the merits of Caldwell’s claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Caldwell v. City of New York, Emmett Caldwell asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer and pause the case until one was found. He alleged that fellow students sexually abused him at PS 123 in 1965 and that school employees knew about it but failed to act.
The court found that Caldwell’s claims appeared likely to have substance. It also considered his claimed indigence, psychiatric problems, difficulty representing himself, and the age of the events, which could make investigating facts and conducting discovery difficult.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted Caldwell’s request for pro bono counsel but denied his request to stay, or pause, all proceedings. The court explained that volunteer lawyers are not guaranteed and that the case would continue at its normal pace.
The detailed version
- Caldwell v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-06560
- Stewart Aaron
- June 10, 2022
Background
Emmett Caldwell moved for pro bono counsel and asked the court to stay all proceedings until a volunteer lawyer was found. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the required fees. Caldwell stated that he remained unable to afford counsel.
Caldwell’s complaint asserts claims under the New York Child Victims Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleges that fellow students sexually abused him while he attended PS 123 in 1965, and that school employees, including teachers and the principal, knew about the incident and failed to act.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a volunteer attorney represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court is not required to provide a lawyer and cannot appoint or pay one; it can only ask an attorney to volunteer.
The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, the claims must appear likely to have substance. If that requirement is met, the court considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate important facts, the likely need for cross-examination, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether a lawyer would be more likely to produce a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Caldwell’s claims, as pleaded, were likely to have substance because of the seriousness of the allegations and because the claims were the type the New York Child Victims Act was intended to address.
The court also found that the other factors supported seeking counsel. Caldwell had repeatedly stated that he had psychiatric problems, took medication, and could not adequately represent himself. The court further found that the age of the alleged incident could make it difficult for Caldwell to investigate important facts, identify responsible individuals, and conduct discovery without representation.
Ruling
The court granted Caldwell’s motion for pro bono counsel. It explained that this meant the court would seek a volunteer attorney, not that it would appoint or pay an attorney. The court warned that finding a volunteer could take time, that no attorney was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Caldwell should be prepared to continue representing himself.
The court denied Caldwell’s motion to stay all proceedings pending appointment of pro bono counsel. The litigation therefore would continue at its normal pace while the court sought a volunteer attorney.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.