Johnson v. The City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-06127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kamar Johnson v. Renrick Benn, Judge Failla denied Johnson’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, allowing renewal later.
Kamar Johnson, whose request for appointed pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the court allowed him to renew the request later if circumstances warrant.
What happened
In Kamar Johnson v. Renrick Benn, Johnson asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him without charge. He also said he might need expert testimony, including help from a medical specialist.
The court reviewed Johnson’s amended complaint and application. It considered whether his claims appeared substantial, his ability to investigate and present the case, the likely need for cross-examination, and the complexity of the legal issues. At this stage, the court could not conclude that appointing counsel was warranted.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the request without prejudice and allowed Johnson to renew it after motions that could end the case are decided or when the case is ready for trial, if circumstances justify it. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-06127
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 8, 2023
Background
Kamar Johnson applied for appointment of pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). He requested a “medical specialist lawyer” and submitted a declaration discussing his anticipated need for expert testimony. The court reviewed his Second Amended Complaint and the application materials.
Legal standard
The court explained that it has broad discretion to appoint counsel for a person unable to afford a lawyer. Under the Second Circuit’s framework, the court first considers whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers factors such as the person’s ability to investigate important facts, whether conflicting evidence and cross-examination will be central, the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and any special reason appointment would promote a fair result.
Ruling
The court found that appointment of pro bono counsel was not warranted at this stage. It stated that, after considering those factors in light of the Second Amended Complaint, it could not conclude that counsel should be appointed at that point. Judge Katherine Polk Failla therefore denied the application for appointment of counsel without prejudice and with leave to renew after dispositive-motion practice or when the case is ready for trial, if circumstances warrant.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail Johnson a copy of the order and terminate the motion at docket number 33.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.