Keesh v. Quick
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-08942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Keesh v. Franco, Judge Halpern granted Keesh’s request for volunteer counsel for his upcoming jury trial.
Tyheem Y. Keesh, whose request for the court to seek volunteer counsel was granted; any lawyer who volunteers would represent him concerning the upcoming jury trial and may participate in settlement discussions.
What happened
In Keesh v. Franco, Tyheem Y. Keesh asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for his civil case. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and found that a small change in his finances did not affect his indigence.
The court found that Keesh’s remaining retaliation claim was likely substantial because it had survived an earlier motion to dismiss and was not challenged in the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court also found that the other factors favored counsel, including that a lawyer could clarify the issues and improve the examination of witnesses.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application and said the court would request counsel for Keesh’s upcoming jury trial; volunteer counsel could also participate in settlement discussions. The court separately denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Keesh v. Quick · No. 7:19-cv-08942
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 8, 2022
Background
Tyheem Y. Keesh filed an application asking the court to request counsel to represent him. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees. Keesh reported that his financial status had changed, but the court found that the change was minimal and that he still qualified as indigent.
The opinion states that, after the court granted defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment on June 15, 2022, Keesh’s retaliation claim against the sole remaining defendant, Jonathan P. Franco, concerning an August 4, 2018 misbehavior report remained set for a jury trial. The opinion does not identify the legal basis of that retaliation claim.
Reasoning
Under the federal statute concerning representation for people unable to afford counsel, a court may request that a lawyer volunteer to represent a civil litigant, but it cannot require the lawyer to serve or provide public funds to pay the lawyer. The court applied factors including whether the claim appeared likely to be substantial, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the need for witness questioning, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether counsel would likely help produce a fair result.
The court found that Keesh’s remaining claim appeared likely to be substantial because it had survived a motion to dismiss and defendants had not challenged it in their summary-judgment motion. The court also found that the other factors favored representation, stating that counsel would help clarify the issues and shape witness questioning.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted Keesh’s Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The court said it would request counsel for Keesh’s upcoming jury trial, which would be scheduled after required filings under Rules 6A and 6B of the court’s Individual Practices. The court also stated that volunteer counsel could participate in settlement discussions.
The court cautioned that there was no guarantee that a volunteer lawyer would accept the case and that Keesh should be prepared to continue without a lawyer. It also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.