Harris v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Broderick denied pro bono counsel, extended service time, and gave plaintiffs 60 days to find counsel.
Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar, who must continue pursuing the case without court-requested volunteer counsel unless they locate counsel themselves; the defendants’ service deadline was extended.
What happened
In Harris v. The City of New York, four plaintiffs asked the court to find a volunteer lawyer because they said they could not afford counsel. They are representing themselves and seek claims under federal civil-rights law concerning the investigation and prosecution of their brothers’ 1992 murders.
The court denied the request because the claims did not appear likely to have enough legal substance to justify seeking volunteer counsel. The court noted possible issues involving whether the plaintiffs could bring claims for their brothers, immunity for prosecutors, and the time limit for filing claims, as well as the lack of a constitutional right to an adequate police investigation.
Judge Broderick gave the plaintiffs 60 additional days to locate counsel, extended their time to serve the defendants by 90 days, and required a status letter by November 28, 2023. The court also denied their request to proceed without paying fees on any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06344
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar are proceeding without lawyers and without paying filing fees. They asked the court to direct the Clerk of Court to seek volunteer legal counsel for them.
The plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning their brothers, who were murdered in 1992. They seek to sue various prosecutors and police officers based on their view that those officials mishandled the investigation and prosecution of the murders. The opinion does not decide whether those claims ultimately succeed.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to volunteer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In a civil case, the court is not required to provide a lawyer and cannot order a lawyer to take the case. Instead, the court has broad discretion to request volunteer representation.
The court first considers whether the person is unable to afford counsel and whether the claim appears likely to have legal substance. If those requirements are met, the court may also consider the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, whether the case will depend on conflicting evidence and cross-examination, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to find counsel, and other circumstances relevant to a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court accepted the plaintiffs’ declaration for purposes of finding that they were unable to afford counsel. But it concluded that their claims were not likely to be legally substantial enough to justify requesting volunteer counsel.
The court identified, without resolving, possible issues about whether the plaintiffs could bring claims on behalf of their brothers, whether prosecutors would have absolute immunity from some claims, and whether the filing deadline had expired because key events occurred more than two decades earlier. The court also relied on decisions stating that crime victims and people close to them generally do not have a constitutional right to a police investigation, including a right to an adequate or proper investigation.
Rulings and deadlines
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion requesting pro bono counsel. It gave them an additional 60 days from entry of the order to locate counsel for claims they might not be permitted to bring on their own behalf. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court extended their time to serve the defendants by 90 days.
The plaintiffs were required to file a status letter about their efforts to locate a lawyer and otherwise pursue the case by November 28, 2023. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 5 and mail the order to the plaintiffs. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it rules on the ancillary request for volunteer counsel and related deadlines rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights claims on their merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.