Herbert v. Ginty
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-06348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Herbert v. Ginty, Judge Halpern denied Herbert’s sixth request for appointed pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Jeremiah F. Herbert’s request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the order also directed the clerk to mail him a copy and terminate the pending motion.
What happened
In Herbert v. Ginty, Jeremiah F. Herbert asked the court for appointed pro bono counsel for the sixth time. His earlier requests had been denied because the court found that appointment was not yet appropriate or that the request was premature.
The court said the case was still in discovery and that nothing had changed since the most recent denial. It therefore denied the sixth request without prejudice, meaning Herbert could renew it later in the litigation.
Judge Halpern said Herbert could ask again at a scheduled March 22, 2023 case-management conference, potentially to obtain help preparing for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. Ginty · No. 7:20-cv-06348
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Jeremiah F. Herbert filed his sixth application asking the court to appoint pro bono counsel—an attorney who would represent him without charging him. The court had denied his earlier requests after considering the factors described in Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether appointment was appropriate at that stage of the case. The court’s most recent denial had been without prejudice to a later renewed request.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the procedural posture of the case had not changed since the prior request. The case was still in discovery, and the court had previously denied a counsel request made during that stage. The court also noted that a case-management conference was scheduled for March 22, 2023, when Herbert could again request counsel to assist with preparing for summary judgment.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Herbert’s sixth application for pro bono counsel without prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail Herbert a copy of the order and terminate the motion pending at Doc. 121.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.