Labombard v. Harrell

Background

Schoen M. Labombard requested a volunteer lawyer to represent him in this civil case. He is incarcerated at Altona Correctional Facility and was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously denied his request for counsel but allowed him to renew it after the defendants responded to the complaint. The City of New York later filed a motion to dismiss. The other two defendants had not yet been served.

Labombard’s claims concern alleged constitutional violations during his detention. He alleged that, on multiple occasions from September 2018 through July 2019, Corrections Officer Brian Harrell burned his left arm with a cigarette in a kitchen garbage area. He said the burns required medical treatment and pain medication, became infected, and caused trauma and mental-health problems. He also alleged that he reported the conduct to senior officials at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and that the New York City Department of Investigations looked into his allegations, but that he remained in the same facility and was subjected to the same abuse.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, a litigant does not have the same guaranteed right to a lawyer that applies in some criminal cases. The court may request, but cannot require, a lawyer to volunteer, and courts must use volunteer attorney time sparingly.

The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, the litigant must show that he is unable to afford counsel and that the claim appears likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers the person’s ability to investigate important facts, whether the case will depend on conflicting evidence and questioning witnesses, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason that counsel would help produce a fair result.

Court’s ruling

Judge Liman granted Labombard’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel. The court noted that Labombard had already been allowed to proceed without paying court fees, which demonstrated indigence. The court found that his allegations appeared likely to have substance at this stage of the case, particularly because he alleged serious harm over nearly a year, reported it to senior officials, and received no effective response.

The court also found that the case would likely require substantial factual investigation and discovery, including possible depositions of Harrell and officials who allegedly received reports about Harrell’s conduct. Because Labombard is incarcerated and has limited legal knowledge and investigative resources, the court concluded that he would likely have difficulty developing and presenting the evidence himself.

The court directed the clerk to attempt to locate a volunteer lawyer to represent Labombard in all aspects of the district-court case, including settlement, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial if the case reaches that stage. The court emphasized that no lawyer was guaranteed to volunteer, that the court had no funds to hire counsel in civil cases, and that Labombard should continue preparing to proceed without a lawyer unless counsel files a notice of appearance.