Chrichlow v. Sipple
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-03222
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chrichlow v. Sipple, Judge Halpern denied Chrichlow’s second request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Kevin Damion Chrichlow, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, was denied a second request for the court to request volunteer counsel. His ability to renew the request later was preserved, but fee-free status for an appeal from this order was denied.
What happened
In Chrichlow v. Sipple, Kevin Damion Chrichlow, who is incarcerated and representing himself, asked the court a second time to request a volunteer lawyer for his civil-rights claims against the defendants. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and the court had previously denied his first request while allowing him to renew it later.
The court said Chrichlow had not shown that his claims were likely to have enough substance to justify a lawyer at that stage. It also found that he had not shown he could not investigate the facts or present his case, that cross-examination would be central, that the legal issues were complex, or that a lawyer would probably produce a fairer result.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the second application, without prejudice to Chrichlow renewing it later in the case. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chrichlow v. Sipple · No. 7:18-cv-03222
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
Kevin Damion Chrichlow, who was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, was proceeding without a lawyer and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and failing to intervene.
Chrichlow previously asked the court to request counsel for him. The court denied that request while allowing him to renew it later. After the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Chrichlow filed a second application asking the court to request a volunteer lawyer.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot require—an attorney to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. The court explained that civil litigants do not have the same right to appointed counsel that criminal defendants generally have. Requests for volunteer counsel should be granted sparingly because courts do not have funds to pay lawyers in these civil matters.
The court applied the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. These include whether the claim appears likely to have substance, whether the person can investigate important facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will make cross-examination especially important, whether the legal issues are complex, and whether a lawyer would be more likely to produce a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Chrichlow qualified as indigent, but it could not determine at that point whether his claim was likely to have sufficient substance. The court also found that the other factors weighed against requesting counsel. Chrichlow had not shown that he could not investigate the important facts or present his case, that cross-examination would be the main proof, that the matter involved complex legal issues, or that counsel would be more likely to produce a fair determination.
The court also noted that Chrichlow had successfully litigated a motion to dismiss, which weighed against finding that a lawyer was necessary to clarify the issues or improve the fairness and speed of the case.
Disposition
The court denied Chrichlow’s Second Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The denial was without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The court separately certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.