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 Jeremiah F. Herbert’s eighth request for volunteer counsel without prejudice during discovery.
Jeremiah F. Herbert, whose eighth request for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the order also terminated the pending motion sequence at Document 123.
What happened
In Herbert v. Ginty, Jeremiah F. Herbert asked the court for a lawyer to represent him without charge. This was his eighth such request, made while the parties were still engaged in exchanging information and evidence.
The court had denied Herbert’s earlier requests because he had not shown that appointing a lawyer was appropriate or that the request was no longer premature. The court said the case’s procedural posture had not changed since the most recent denial.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Herbert’s eighth application without prejudice. The clerk was directed to mail Herbert a copy of the order and end the pending motion sequence at Document 123.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. Ginty · No. 7:20-cv-06348
- Philip Halpern
- Jan. 11, 2023
Background
Jeremiah F. Herbert filed his eighth application for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer provided without charge, on January 10, 2023. The application was made while the case was in discovery, the stage in which the parties exchange information and evidence.
The court stated that it had denied Herbert’s earlier requests after applying the factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. Those decisions found that Herbert had not made the required showing that appointing pro bono counsel was appropriate and/or that his request was not premature. The court’s most recent decision had denied his request “without prejudice to renewing at a later stage of the litigation.”
Ruling
The court found that the case’s procedural posture had not changed since Herbert’s prior request, which was also made during discovery. It therefore denied Herbert’s eighth application for pro bono counsel without prejudice. The order does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The clerk was directed to mail Herbert a copy of the order at the address provided on the docket and to terminate the motion sequence pending at Document 123. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.