Ortiz v. Eskina 214 Corp.

Background

William Segura, an individual defendant, applied for the court to request pro bono counsel—volunteer legal representation—for him. The application was filed at ECF No. 124.

Legal standard

The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil courts generally are not required to provide lawyers to people who cannot afford one. Courts have broad discretion to decide whether to request volunteer counsel, and such requests should be granted sparingly. A person seeking this assistance must first show financial inability to hire a lawyer, such as by successfully applying to proceed without paying court fees. The court must also consider whether the person’s claim appears likely to have substance, along with other factors identified by the Second Circuit.

Reasons for the decision

Segura told the court that he could not afford to hire an attorney, but he had not filed an application to proceed without paying court fees. The court therefore found that he had not established financial inability for purposes of the request. The court also found that the other factors weighed against requesting counsel at that time: the case was likely not headed to trial because the plaintiffs had expressed a desire to dismiss it, and Segura had been able to conduct discovery and explain the basis for his defenses.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Segura’s application for the court to request counsel. The denial was without prejudice to a renewed application later in the case. The clerk was asked to close the motion at ECF No. 124 and mail Segura a copy of the order.