Colson v. Mingo
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-02765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Colson v. Mingo, Judge Furman denied Colson’s request for pro bono counsel after finding his claims unlikely to have merit.
Ronald R. Colson was denied appointed volunteer counsel and remained responsible for responding to the defendants’ pending summary-judgment motion and meeting the court’s deadlines. The defendants’ summary-judgment motion was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Colson v. Mingo, Ronald R. Colson asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer. This was his third request; earlier, the court had appointed a lawyer only to help with discovery, and that representation ended after discovery was completed.
The court denied the request because it concluded that Colson’s claims did not appear likely to have merit. The court did not decide the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. Colson remained responsible for responding to that motion by May 12, 2023, and the order explained how deadlines would work if he also sought summary judgment.
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued the order on March 31, 2023. He also told Colson about a New York Legal Assistance Group clinic that could provide limited-scope help, while emphasizing that Colson would remain self-represented and responsible for his case and deadlines.
The detailed version
- Colson v. Mingo · No. 1:18-cv-02765
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Ronald R. Colson moved for appointment of pro bono counsel on September 27, 2022. The court had reserved judgment on that request until the defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. The defendants filed that motion on March 30, 2023.
The opinion states that this was Colson’s third request for appointed volunteer counsel. The court denied his first request as premature and granted his second request for the limited purpose of assisting with discovery. That representation ended on August 25, 2022, after discovery was completed.
Legal standard and ruling
The court applied the standard requiring consideration of the apparent merit of the case, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, efforts to find a lawyer, the availability of lawyers, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate facts and address legal issues without assistance. The court treated the apparent merit of the claims as a threshold requirement: it would consider the other factors only if the claims appeared likely to be substantial.
The court denied Colson’s request for pro bono counsel. After reviewing the record, it concluded that his claims failed to pass the test of likely merit. The court expressly reserved judgment on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment; this order did not decide that motion.
Next steps and other information
The order required Colson to file any opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion by May 12, 2023. If he wished to file his own summary-judgment motion, he was required to submit one consolidated memorandum supporting his motion and opposing the defendants’ motion. The order also set deadlines for the defendants’ reply and any reply by Colson in that circumstance.
The court advised Colson about a New York Legal Assistance Group clinic offering limited-scope assistance to people handling civil cases without lawyers. The attached agreement states that NYLAG would not become counsel of record, that assistance could include advice or help reviewing or drafting documents, and that Colson would remain responsible for his case and all deadlines. The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entry for Colson’s counsel motion, ECF No. 118, and mail him a copy of the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.