Daniels v. Kijakazi
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-06297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Daniels v. Kijakazi: Judge Liman denied Daniels’s request for appointed counsel, allowing renewal after a decision on the case’s merits.
Tyree Daniels, an unrepresented plaintiff seeking appointed counsel in an employment discrimination case.
What happened
In Daniels v. Kijakazi, Tyree Daniels, who was representing themself, asked the Southern District of New York to appoint free legal counsel for an employment discrimination lawsuit. Daniels said counsel had previously been appointed in Illinois, but no lawyer was assigned after the case was transferred to New York.
The court considered whether Daniels’s claims appeared substantial, whether the case required investigation or complex legal issues, and whether counsel was needed to handle disputed facts. It also explained that volunteer lawyers are requested sparingly in civil cases and that counsel is rarely appointed early in a case.
Judge Liman denied the motion without prejudice. Daniels may renew the request after the court decides the merits if Daniels still cannot obtain a lawyer; the order did not decide the discrimination claims.
The detailed version
- Daniels v. Kijakazi · No. 1:22-cv-06297
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Tyree Daniels filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation while employed by the Social Security Administration. Daniels initially filed the case in the Northern District of Illinois and requested appointed counsel. That court granted the request, and different lawyers were appointed over time as prior lawyers were relieved.
The defendant later moved to dismiss or transfer the case for lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, stating that Daniels was located in New York when the alleged discrimination and retaliation occurred. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York in July 2022. Daniels stated that no attorney was assigned after the transfer and that many New York legal-aid offices had declined or could not provide representation.
Legal standard
The court explained that it may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Under the factors used in the Second Circuit, the court considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance, whether the case requires significant factual investigation, the person’s ability to present the case, whether conflicting evidence and credibility disputes will be important, whether the legal issues are complex, and whether another special reason supports appointing counsel.
The court also explained that it does not have a rule requiring members of the bar to accept appointments and that courts must request volunteer lawyers sparingly because volunteer-lawyer time is limited. Requests for free counsel are rarely granted early in a case and usually are not granted before a decision on the merits.
Ruling
The court found no reason to depart from that practice and denied Daniels’s motion without prejudice to renewal after the court has issued a decision on the merits if Daniels is still unable to obtain counsel. The order therefore left open a later request for counsel but did not decide the underlying employment discrimination claims.
The court also informed Daniels about a Pro Se Law Clinic operated by the New York Legal Assistance Group. The order stated that the clinic is a private organization and is not part of the court, and that filings still must be made by an unrepresented party through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.