Anderson v. City of New York
- Andrew Krause
- 7:22-cv-03990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anderson v. City of New York, Judge Roman denied Anderson’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess its strength or complexity.
Tameeka Anderson’s request for appointment of volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the case itself was not resolved by this order.
What happened
In Anderson v. City of New York, Tameeka Anderson asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent her in the civil case.
The court said it could request a lawyer from its volunteer panel but could do so only after considering whether Anderson’s position appeared likely to have substance and whether the case’s circumstances required assistance. The court noted that the City had not yet been served and had not appeared or responded.
The court denied Anderson’s motion without prejudice, allowing her to renew the request later. Judge Nelson S. Roman said the court could not yet evaluate the strength or complexity of the case or whether Anderson could proceed without assistance.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. City of New York · No. 7:22-cv-03990
- Andrew Krause
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Tameeka Anderson applied for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer, on September 6, 2022. The opinion discusses the court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request that an attorney from the court’s pro bono panel represent an indigent litigant in a civil case.
Legal standard
The court applied standards requiring it to first consider whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have substance or shows some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider factors such as the person’s ability to obtain representation independently, ability to handle the case without assistance, the need for factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expert cross-examination.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the request came too early in the litigation. The docket showed that the case had been filed less than one year earlier and that the City had not yet been served with the summons and complaint. The City therefore had not appeared or had an opportunity to respond. Because of this early stage, the court could not determine whether Anderson’s position showed a strong chance of success, whether the legal issues were particularly complex, or whether she was unable to handle the case without assistance. The court noted that this assessment could change as the case progressed.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Anderson’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew at a later stage of the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8, mail Anderson a copy of the order, and show proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.