Flores v. The City of New York
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-01680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Flores v. City of New York, Judge Parker directed the Clerk to seek volunteer counsel for settlement negotiations only.
Gabriel Flores, whose request for volunteer counsel was addressed; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer lawyer for settlement negotiations only.
What happened
Gabriel Flores sued the City of New York and others, alleging violations of his rights while incarcerated, including attorney communications, religious exercise, and confinement conditions. Some claims survived a motion to dismiss.
The court had allowed Flores to proceed without paying filing fees and found that his claims were likely substantial. It also found that he needed help effectively participating in settlement negotiations and that volunteer counsel could help resolve the case more quickly and fairly.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk to try to locate volunteer counsel for Flores solely for a settlement conference. The lawyer would have no responsibilities beyond that work, and the court warned that a volunteer might not be found and that Flores might have to continue without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Flores v. The City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-01680
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Gabriel Flores brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that, while incarcerated, his rights to confidential communication with an attorney, religious exercise, and constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement were violated, among other claims. The opinion states that several of his claims survived a motion to dismiss.
The court had previously granted Flores permission to proceed without paying filing fees, finding that he was unable to afford them. The Clerk of Court sought volunteer legal counsel for Flores to participate in settlement negotiations.
Legal standard
Under the federal filing-fee statute, a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel, but it cannot require a lawyer to volunteer or provide public funds for a civil case. Courts must make these requests sparingly. The court considered whether Flores’s claims were likely to have substance and whether other factors supported requesting counsel, including his ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Flores’s claims were likely to have substance. It also found that the relevant factors supported requesting volunteer counsel because Flores lacked the ability to participate effectively in settlement negotiations. The court concluded that representation could sharpen the issues and help produce a quicker and fairer resolution without the expense of additional motions and trial proceedings.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate volunteer counsel for Flores solely to represent him at a settlement conference. Counsel’s representation would end after counsel filed a notice confirming completion and would not extend to other aspects of the case. The court warned that volunteer lawyers are scarce, that finding counsel could take a long time, that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case, and that Flores should be prepared to proceed without counsel.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.