Alli v. Walker

Background

Umar Alli applied for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a request that a lawyer volunteer to represent him without charge. The court had previously granted Alli permission to proceed without paying court fees, establishing that he was indigent for purposes of the counsel application.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—not require—an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. Civil litigants do not have the same right to appointed counsel that criminal defendants may have. The court applied factors identified by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the claims appear likely to have substance and, if so, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the likely importance of conflicting evidence and cross-examination, and any special reason that counsel would help produce a fair result.

Ruling

The court held that Alli was eligible to seek pro bono counsel because he had shown that he was indigent. But, on the current record, the court could not determine that his claims were likely to have substance. It therefore concluded that appointing—or, more precisely, requesting—pro bono counsel was not appropriate at that time.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Alli’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court also noted that, under an earlier order, Alli could consult the New York Legal Assistance Group legal clinic.