Genao v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-00303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Genao v. City of New York, Judge Figueredo directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for Genao’s two surviving claims.
Gabino Genao, whose two surviving claims may receive limited assistance from a volunteer lawyer if one agrees to represent him; the order also affects prospective pro bono counsel and the court clerk.
What happened
Genao v. City of New York concerns Gabino Genao’s claims about officials’ response to a fire he set in his cell while incarcerated. Genao was representing himself and had previously asked for free legal assistance.
After Genao’s application to proceed without paying filing fees was granted, the court found him unable to afford counsel. The court also noted that two parts of his claims had been recommended to survive the defendants’ request for judgment without a trial: deliberate indifference to medical needs and unconstitutional conditions of confinement involving a chemical-agent fire extinguisher.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the clerk to seek a volunteer lawyer for a limited purpose: helping Genao litigate those two surviving claims. The court explained that there was no funding to pay a civil lawyer, that a volunteer might not be found, and that Genao might have to continue without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00303
- Analisa Torres
- June 20, 2023
Background
Gabino Genao brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated in the custody of the Department of Corrections at the Manhattan Detention Center. He challenged the defendants’ actions after a fire he set in his cell on December 15, 2020. His complaint asserted claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and municipal liability.
Genao was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously denied, without prejudice, two requests for pro bono counsel. Genao later submitted two additional applications. The court had granted his application to proceed without paying filing fees, so it found that he qualified as unable to afford counsel.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a lawyer volunteer to represent a person unable to afford counsel in a civil case. The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic right to a free lawyer and that courts must use volunteer-lawyer time sparingly. It applied factors including whether the claims appeared likely to have substance, the litigant’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the issues, and whether counsel would make a fair result more likely.
The court found that two claims appeared likely to have substance because a June 20, 2023 Report and Recommendation recommended denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to parts of Genao’s deliberate-indifference and conditions-of-confinement claims. The court also found that Genao’s incarceration would make it extremely difficult for him to prepare and present those claims at trial.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the clerk to attempt to locate pro bono counsel for a limited appearance assisting Genao with the two surviving claims. The court clarified that it could only request volunteer representation, not require a lawyer to take the case, and that no funds were available to retain counsel in civil cases. It also directed the clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 72 and 96. The order did not guarantee that a volunteer lawyer would agree to represent Genao.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.