Samson v. Fresenius North America
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-02349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Samson v. Fresenius North America, Judge Netburn directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for settlement discussions in Samson’s employment-discrimination case.
Hano**k** Samson, Fresenius North America, and any attorney who may volunteer to represent Samson for settlement discussions.
What happened
In Samson v. Fresenius North America, Hanok Samson requested a free lawyer to represent him. He alleges employment discrimination based on race and national origin under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
The court had granted Samson permission to proceed without paying court fees and found that his claims might have substance. Because the case was at an early stage, the court directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for the limited purpose of settlement discussions.
Judge Sarah Netburn closed Samson’s motion requesting counsel. Any volunteer lawyer’s representation will generally end after settlement discussions, unless the court expands the lawyer’s role. The order does not guarantee that a lawyer will volunteer.
The detailed version
- Samson v. Fresenius North America · No. 1:22-cv-02349
- Sarah Netburn
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
Hanok Samson requested a pro bono attorney—meaning a volunteer lawyer—to represent him in this civil case. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying court fees, so the court treated him as unable to afford counsel.
Samson’s complaint asserts employment-discrimination claims based on race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but it cannot require an attorney to take the case or pay the attorney in an ordinary civil action. The court explained that volunteer representation should be requested sparingly. It considered whether Samson’s claims might have substance and whether representation could lead to a quicker and fairer result, along with other factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that Samson’s claims might be of substance. It also concluded that representation could lead to a quicker and fairer result, particularly because the case was at an early stage. The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of participating in settlement discussions and directed that counsel file a notice of limited appearance.
The requested lawyer would not be responsible for other parts of the case, including responding to a dispositive motion. If the defendant files such a motion, counsel may ask for additional time or ask the court to expand the representation. Without an expansion, the representation will end when settlement negotiations are completed. The court also stated that there is no guarantee a volunteer will accept the case and that Samson should be prepared to continue without a lawyer.
The court directed the clerk to seek counsel and closed the motion at ECF No. 34. The order addressed representation only; it did not decide the merits of Samson’s employment-discrimination claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.