Brown v. O'Neill

Background

Robkiem Brown and Hassan Bouchet brought claims arising from their arrests on August 31, 2016, including false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, unlawful search and seizure, and unlawful discrimination. In an earlier summary-judgment ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion filed by the City of New York, former Police Commissioner James P. O’Neill, and Police Officer Adekunle Longe. The court denied summary judgment on the claim that the plaintiffs were unlawfully arrested without a warrant because a factual dispute remained about whether they were in their home when arrested. It also found a factual dispute about whether Officer Longe was protected by qualified immunity on that claim. The court granted summary judgment to the former commissioner and the City on all claims and to Officer Longe on the remaining claims.

After summary judgment had been fully briefed, the plaintiffs requested volunteer lawyers. The opinion explains that in a civil case, the court may ask a lawyer to volunteer for a person who cannot afford counsel, but it cannot require a lawyer to accept the representation or provide payment. The court considers whether the person appears unable to afford counsel, whether the claim appears likely to have substance, and whether factors such as factual disputes, the need to question witnesses, the complexity of the issues, and the person’s ability to present the case make volunteer representation appropriate.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the plaintiffs had met those requirements. Their statements indicated that they were unable to afford counsel and had tried for several years to obtain a lawyer. Their remaining unlawful search-and-seizure claim had survived summary judgment and was therefore likely to have substance. The court also found that they would probably have difficulty handling the case themselves, particularly because they might need to question police officers about the arrests and present evidence to a jury. The court further stated that they appeared to have little familiarity with or understanding of the law.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part. It directed the Clerk of Court to try to locate volunteer counsel to represent them in all remaining aspects of the district-court case, including settlement, any remaining discovery, and trial if the case reaches trial. If a lawyer is located, that lawyer must file a notice of appearance as volunteer counsel. The court emphasized that there is no guarantee that a lawyer will volunteer, accept the case, or be available to devote substantial time and resources to it. It therefore advised the plaintiffs to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The court also set a telephone status conference for September 6, 2023, at 3:00 p.m.