Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 8, 2022

Encarnacion v. Irby

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:22-cv-01733
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Encarnacion v. Irby, Judge Ramos denied Encarnacion’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

Samuel Encarnacion’s request for court-requested volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided.

What happened

Samuel Encarnacion, who is representing himself in Encarnacion v. Irby, asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. He filed the request on July 6, 2022.

The court said it could ask its Pro Bono Panel to consider representing a person who cannot afford a lawyer, but it could not force an attorney to take the case. The court could not conclude at that stage that Encarnacion’s claims were likely to have merit.

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request without prejudice, meaning Encarnacion may renew it later as the case develops. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Encarnacion a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Encarnacion v. Irby · No. 1:22-cv-01733
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
July 8, 2022

Background

Samuel Encarnacion filed this action on February 28, 2022, and is representing himself. On July 6, 2022, he asked the court to request pro bono counsel—an attorney willing to represent him without charging him—for the case.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal courts cannot require attorneys to represent people who are representing themselves in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Bono Panel to consider representing a person who cannot afford counsel. The court must first determine whether the person’s claims appear likely to have merit. If they do, the court considers additional factors, including the person’s ability to investigate the facts and present the case without a lawyer.

Ruling

The court stated that, at this stage, it could not conclude that Encarnacion’s claims were likely to have merit, although that could change as the case progressed. It therefore denied Encarnacion’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing the request later. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 13, and mail Encarnacion a copy of the order. The order also stated that Encarnacion may seek advice from the New York Legal Assistance Group.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.