Tolliver v. Jordan
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-11823
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tolliver v. Jordan, Judge Halpern directed a search for volunteer counsel to help Tolliver with summary-judgment motions.
Eric Tolliver is affected because the court directed the Clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for his summary-judgment proceedings. Any volunteer lawyer would have only the limited responsibilities described in the order, and the defendants are affected because Tolliver may receive assistance in responding to their expected summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Tolliver v. Jordan, Eric Tolliver asked for volunteer legal counsel to help him with the expected summary-judgment motions in his case against Lieutenant Jordan, C.O., and other defendants. Tolliver had represented himself during discovery, which had closed, and the court had allowed both sides to seek summary judgment.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to try to find a volunteer lawyer for Tolliver. The lawyer’s role would be limited to the summary-judgment motions, including opposing the defendants’ expected motion, possibly pursuing Tolliver’s own motion, and participating in settlement discussions. The court relied on its earlier finding that Tolliver’s claim was likely substantial and that the factors supporting volunteer counsel still applied.
Judge Philip M. Halpern stated that the lawyer would not have to represent Tolliver at trial unless the court later expanded the assignment. The order warned that finding a volunteer could take a long time, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Tolliver should be prepared to continue without counsel.
The detailed version
- Tolliver v. Jordan · No. 7:19-cv-11823
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 24, 2022
What the Court Decided
The court directed the Clerk of Court to seek pro bono counsel— a volunteer lawyer—for Eric Tolliver. The representation is limited to summary-judgment motion practice and related settlement discussions.
Background
On August 19, 2021, the court had granted Tolliver’s request for pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of conducting discovery. Tolliver ultimately proceeded without a lawyer during discovery, and discovery closed on July 4, 2022.
On September 15, 2022, the court allowed Tolliver and the defendants to file motions for summary judgment, which are motions asking the court to decide a case or claim without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed. On September 19, 2022, Tolliver asked for pro bono counsel to help him oppose the defendants’ expected motion.
Reasons for the Order
The court stated that there was no indication that Tolliver’s financial circumstances had changed since he was allowed to proceed without paying court filing fees. The court also relied on its earlier finding that Tolliver’s claim was “likely to be of substance” and said that the other factors supporting pro bono counsel continued to favor representation. The court concluded that counsel at the summary-judgment stage could help clarify the issues and make the process more efficient and fair.
Limits of the Representation
The volunteer lawyer’s assignment may include pressing Tolliver’s anticipated summary-judgment motion, if counsel advises doing so, opposing the defendants’ anticipated motion, and participating in settlement discussions. Counsel will not be required to represent Tolliver at trial. If the case proceeds to trial, counsel may ask the court to expand the assignment, but the representation will otherwise end after the summary-judgment motions have been fully briefed. It will terminate when counsel files a Notice of Completion.
The court explained that there are no funds to hire lawyers in civil cases and that the pro bono program depends on volunteers. It cautioned that a volunteer might not be found and that Tolliver should be prepared to continue without a lawyer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.