Washington v. Johnson
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Washington v. Johnson: Judge Gorenstein vacated a proposed dismissal, reopened briefing, and denied Washington’s request for appointed counsel.
Pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington, the defendants, and any later volunteer counsel considered for the case.
What happened
In Washington v. Johnson, pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington gave the court a new mailing address and said he wanted to continue the case. The court had previously recommended dismissing the case because returned mailings prevented contact and Washington had not timely responded to defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court vacated that recommendation and ordered defendants to mail Washington another copy of their motion. It set deadlines for Washington’s response and defendants’ reply, and directed the Clerk to update Washington’s address on the docket.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Washington’s request for the court to seek volunteer counsel, finding that the case had not yet been shown likely to be substantial enough to warrant counsel and that Washington could address the expected issues himself. The court said it could seek counsel later if circumstances changed.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Johnson · No. 1:22-cv-01440
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
On August 2, 2022, the court issued a Report and Recommendation proposing that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The stated reasons were that pro se plaintiff Landon L. Washington had not provided a reliable way to reach him, several mailings had been returned, and he had not timely responded to defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
Washington later filed a letter providing a new mailing address and stating that he wanted to continue the case.
Rulings
The court vacated the Report and Recommendation. It directed defendants to mail Washington another copy of their motion to dismiss and file proof of service by August 19, 2022. Washington was directed to respond by September 19, 2022, and defendants could file a reply by October 3, 2022.
The court denied Washington’s application for the court to request volunteer counsel. Applying the factors identified in Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., the court found that the application and other filings did not then show that Washington’s claim was likely to be substantial enough to warrant seeking volunteer counsel. The court also found that the case was not of a character that would prevent Washington from addressing relevant facts or other expected issues. It stated that it could seek counsel later if future review showed that appointment was warranted.
At Washington’s request, the Clerk was directed to change his mailing address on the docket. The order did not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss or the merits of Washington’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.