Harriram v. City University of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-09712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Harriram v. City University of New York, Judge Moses denied Priya Harriram’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Priya Harriram’s request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss was not decided by this order.
What happened
Harriram v. City University of New York concerns Priya Harriram’s request for a volunteer lawyer to help with her claims against the City University of New York and others. She alleges that she was not hired as a notetaker and was later barred from a public event in retaliation for earlier legal activity.
The court said that appointment of counsel requires an initial showing that the claims have substance or are likely to succeed. Because the defendants’ motion to dismiss was still pending and the claims had not yet been tested, the court said a fuller record was needed.
Judge Barbara Moses denied Harriram’s application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal after the motion to dismiss is resolved and a potentially meritorious claim can be shown.
The detailed version
- Harriram v. City University of New York · No. 1:22-cv-09712
- Barbara Moses
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
Priya Harriram, who was proceeding without a lawyer, requested appointment of pro bono counsel—volunteer legal representation—to assist with this action. She alleges that she applied for a notetaker position at Lehman College, part of the City University of New York, on August 10, 2022. According to her allegations, after she was initially told that Lehman College could hire her, Bridget Barbera caused the City University of New York to refuse to hire her in retaliation for her earlier lawsuit against the City University of New York and Barbera.
Harriram also alleges that the retaliation continued on September 15, 2022, when she was prohibited from attending a public event at Lehman College because Susan E. Ebersole provided the school’s public safety department with false statements. She further alleges that the City University of New York issued no-contact orders in September 2022 barring her from contacting defendants in her earlier lawsuit. Her complaint asserts, among other claims, employment discrimination based on race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and violations of the New York City Human Rights Law.
Counsel-Appointment Standard
The court explained that it must consider the apparent merits of the claims, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate facts and address legal issues without assistance. The most important threshold consideration is whether the claim appears substantial or likely to succeed. The court also noted that requests for volunteer counsel are rarely granted at the early stages of a case, usually before the court has decided the merits, because volunteer attorney time is limited.
Ruling
The defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and that motion was still pending. The court stated that the complaint had not yet been tested on the merits and that a more developed record was necessary to determine whether Harriram’s chances of success justified appointing counsel.
Judge Barbara Moses therefore denied Harriram’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal after resolution of the pending motion to dismiss and after she could demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious claim. The clerk was directed to close the motion for counsel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.