Urena v. City of New York
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-04758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Urena v. City of New York, Judge Parker denied Amaury Urena’s request for volunteer counsel because he did not show indigence or inability to find counsel.
Amaury Urena, whose application for the court to request volunteer counsel was denied.
What happened
In Urena v. City of New York, Amaury Urena, now representing himself, sued the City of New York and certain Department of Correction officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges that during a transfer between facilities on Rikers Island, he spent about 24 hours in an intake area and on a bus without basic necessities or services.
Urena asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for him. The court found that he had not updated his financial information after leaving jail or shown that he remained unable to afford a lawyer. He also had not explained his efforts to find counsel, and he had previously been represented by a law firm that he ended his relationship with.
Judge Parker denied the application. The court said the case did not appear especially complex, and Urena had not shown that he could not investigate the facts or present his claims himself, although the court recognized that his claims might have substance.
The detailed version
- Urena v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04758
- Katharine Parker
- Sept. 5, 2023
Background
Amaury Urena, previously represented by counsel and now acting without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New York and certain New York City Department of Correction officers. He alleges that, while being transferred between facilities on Rikers Island, he was held for approximately 24 hours in an intake area and then on a bus without access to services or basic necessities.
Urena filed an application asking the court to request pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would volunteer to represent him. The court explained that, in a civil case, a person generally has no constitutional right to a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request that a lawyer volunteer, but it cannot require a lawyer to accept the representation.
Legal standard
The court said it must first consider whether the applicant is indigent and unable to obtain counsel independently. If those requirements are met, the court considers whether the claims appear likely to have substance and evaluates additional practical factors, including the complexity of the legal issues, the applicant’s ability to investigate and present the case, and efforts to obtain counsel. Requests for volunteer counsel are granted sparingly.
Reasons for the ruling
The court found that Urena had not shown that he remained indigent. Although he had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees while incarcerated on March 1, 2022, he was no longer incarcerated and had not updated the court about his financial situation or filed documents confirming that he was indigent.
The court also found that Urena had not shown that he could not obtain counsel without the court’s assistance. He had previously been represented by Rickner PLLC, which he terminated on March 28, 2023, without giving the court an explanation. In its motion to withdraw, former counsel stated that Urena had received legal funding from Barrington Legal Solutions LLC. Urena said he had contacted multiple law firms, but he did not identify them or describe efforts to obtain lower-cost legal assistance. The court also noted that he had not said he contacted the New York Legal Assistance Group Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, a free legal clinic in the district that the court had encouraged him to contact.
Finally, although the court stated that Urena’s claims might have substance, it found that the additional practical factors weighed against requesting counsel. The court determined that the case was not particularly complex and that Urena had not shown he could not investigate the necessary facts or present the case himself. The court noted that it gives special consideration to people representing themselves and will interpret their submissions to raise the strongest arguments they reasonably suggest.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Urena’s Application for the Court to Request Pro Bono Counsel. The Clerk was asked to mail Urena a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.