Washington v. Chong
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Washington v. Chong, Judge Swain denied Washington’s request for free counsel without prejudice because her amended complaint had not yet shown a potentially valid claim.
Charmeen D. Washington’s request for a volunteer lawyer was denied without prejudice, meaning she may renew the request after filing an amended complaint. Her permission to proceed without paying fees was also denied for purposes of appealing this order.
What happened
In Washington v. Chong, Charmeen D. Washington asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for her civil case against Nabia Chong and Danielle Iacono. The court had allowed Washington to proceed without paying filing costs, so it found that she qualified financially for consideration of counsel.
The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a free lawyer. It must consider whether the claim appears likely to have substance and whether a lawyer would help produce a fair result. Washington’s original complaint failed to state a claim, and she had not yet filed an amended complaint, so the court could not make those assessments.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Washington’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing it after she files an amended complaint. The court also denied Washington permission to proceed without paying fees if she appeals this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Chong · No. 1:23-cv-01936
- Laura Swain
- June 5, 2023
Background
Charmeen D. Washington applied for the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer, in her civil action against Nabia Chong and Danielle Iacono. The court had already granted Washington permission to proceed without paying court fees under the in forma pauperis statute, so the court found that she was indigent for purposes of the counsel request.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a federal court may request—but cannot require or pay for—a lawyer to volunteer for an indigent civil litigant. The court has broad discretion and should grant such requests sparingly. Under the factors identified by the Second Circuit, the court first considers whether the claim appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, it considers matters such as the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and whether counsel would be more likely to produce a fair determination.
Court’s analysis
Washington’s original complaint failed to state a claim, and she had not yet filed an amended complaint. As a result, the court could not determine whether any claim she intended to pursue was likely to have substance or whether counsel would be more likely to lead to a fair determination.
Disposition
The court denied Washington’s application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to a renewed application after she files an amended complaint. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.