Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:18-cv-02195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry: Judge Aaron ordered a pro bono lawyer requested for Chepilko before the upcoming jury trial.
Sergei Chepilko, who was representing himself, was affected because the court directed its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney for him before the upcoming jury trial. Attorneys on the court’s pro bono panel could also receive the request.
What happened
In Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry, Sergei Chepilko was representing himself in a civil case that was approaching a jury trial. After a telephone conference, the court considered whether he should receive help from a free lawyer.
The court explained that federal law allows a court to request a volunteer lawyer for someone who cannot afford one, but does not require free counsel in civil cases. The court found that a lawyer would help Chepilko handle possible motions and the complexities of trial.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron directed the court’s Pro Se Office to request a lawyer through the court’s volunteer attorney panel. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry · No. 1:18-cv-02195
- Stewart Aaron
- Aug. 28, 2023
Background
Sergei Chepilko was representing himself in this civil case. After a telephone conference with the parties, the court considered representation for Chepilko at the upcoming jury trial.
Legal standard
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), which allows a court to request an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil litigants do not have a general right to a court-supplied lawyer. Courts have broad discretion to seek volunteer representation after considering the relevant factors. The court also explained that the statute authorizes the court to request that an attorney volunteer, rather than requiring the court to compel an attorney to represent the litigant.
Reasoning and ruling
The court found that requesting counsel was appropriate under the specific circumstances of the case at that stage. It stated that representation would help Chepilko address the complexities of potential motions and the trial. Judge Stewart D. Aaron therefore directed the Pro Se Office to request an attorney by placing the case on a list circulated to attorneys who belong to the court’s pro bono panel. The order addressed counsel only and did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.