Smolen v. Brown
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-07621
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Smolen v. Brown, Judge Karas denied Samuel J. Smolen, Jr.’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice because he had not shown counsel was necessary.
The ruling directly affected Samuel J. Smolen, Jr.’s request for appointed volunteer counsel. It did not decide the merits of his civil-rights claims.
What happened
In Smolen v. Brown, Samuel J. Smolen, Jr., who was representing himself while incarcerated, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer for his civil-rights case. He alleges that corrections officers assaulted him and refused to file his related grievances.
The court assumed, for purposes of the request, that his claims had some chance of success. But it found that his claims were clear, based mainly on events he personally experienced, and not too complex for him to present himself. The court also found that he had not shown that his blindness, age, cancer, or efforts to contact lawyers made appointed counsel necessary.
Judge Karas denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice. The court said Smolen could renew the request with additional information about changed circumstances, including if the case proceeds to trial.
The detailed version
- Smolen v. Brown · No. 7:18-cv-07621
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Samuel J. Smolen, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued Corrections Officer Lawton P. Brown, Jr., and other named and unidentified defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion states that Smolen alleged he was physically assaulted multiple times by corrections officers while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and that officers refused to file grievances he gave them.
The order concerned only Smolen’s application for appointment of volunteer counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court explained that there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in ordinary civil cases, but a court may appoint one for an eligible person who cannot afford counsel.
Legal standard
The court applied a two-step test. First, it considered whether Smolen’s claims appeared to have at least some likelihood of merit. If that threshold was met, the court then considered practical factors, including Smolen’s ability to investigate important facts, the complexity of the legal issues, his ability to present the case, and whether appointing counsel would make a fair result more likely. The court also noted that a person asking for appointed counsel must show that he cannot obtain counsel independently.
Court’s analysis
For purposes of the application, the court assumed that Smolen’s claims satisfied the initial likelihood-of-merit threshold. It nevertheless concluded that the practical factors did not justify appointing counsel. The court found that the claims were not unusually complex, were largely based on events that occurred in Smolen’s presence, and did not appear to require outside investigation. It also found that his court submissions adequately expressed his arguments and requested relief.
Smolen stated that he was legally blind in both eyes, 77 years old, and a cancer patient. The court expressed sympathy for his health problems but found that he had not shown that they prevented him from effectively pursuing the case. Smolen also stated that he had written to several lawyers without receiving a reply. The court found that those efforts did not outweigh the other factors.
Disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Smolen’s request for assignment of counsel without prejudice. The court stated that Smolen may renew the request and provide additional information about changed circumstances supporting a new application, including if and when the case proceeds to trial. The Clerk was directed to terminate the application and mail Smolen a copy of the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.