Weng v. Does 1-35
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Judge Oetken denied Weng’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the court could not assess the claims’ likely strength.
The ruling directly affected Weijie Weng’s request for a volunteer lawyer; the court denied that request without prejudice, allowing it to be renewed later.
What happened
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Weijie Weng asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer to represent him. He paid the filing fee and said he had submitted an application to proceed without paying court costs, but the court had no record of receiving that application.
The court explained that civil litigants do not automatically receive lawyers and that requests for appointed counsel are considered sparingly. A person must first show an inability to afford counsel, and the claims must appear likely to have substance. The court said it could not yet determine whether Weng’s claims met that standard. It also noted possible difficulties serving the thirty-five unidentified defendants and recovering from more than thirty entities apparently located in China and Singapore.
Judge Oetken denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing it later. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Does 1-35 · No. 1:22-cv-07082
- James Oetken
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Weijie Weng applied for the court to request counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which allows a court to ask a lawyer to represent a person unable to afford counsel. Weng paid the filing fee in the case. He later requested pro bono counsel and stated that he had submitted an application to proceed without paying court costs, but the court did not have a record of receiving that application.
The defendants included thirty-five unidentified people and more than thirty entities apparently located in China and Singapore. The court noted that serving the defendants and recovering from them could present difficulties.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil litigants have no automatic right to a lawyer. Courts have broad discretion over requests for appointed counsel and should grant them sparingly. The applicant must first show that he or she cannot afford counsel. The court must then consider whether the claims appear likely to have substance or have some chance of success. Even a non-frivolous claim may not justify appointed counsel when the chances of success are extremely small.
Ruling
The court stated that it could not determine at that stage whether Weng’s claims were likely to have substance. Judge J. Paul Oetken therefore denied Weng’s motion to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The order addressed only the request for counsel and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.