Greathouse v. NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supevision

Background

Leon Greathouse Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, and former New York City police detective Freddy Vasquez. The opinion concerns two applications filed on September 11, 2023: an application to proceed without paying filing fees and an application asking the court to request volunteer legal counsel.

Greathouse had previously submitted an application to proceed without paying fees with his complaint. That application stated that he was unemployed but had received a $355,000 settlement payment from the Comptroller of New York State within the preceding 12 months. The court directed him either to pay the required $402 in filing and administrative fees or to amend the application. The docket showed that he paid the $402 by credit card on July 21, 2023.

Application to Proceed Without Paying Filing Fees

The court treated the later fee-waiver application as an application to renew the earlier request. It denied that application as moot because Greathouse had already paid the filing and administrative fees. The court also stated that the later application appeared to have been submitted as an attachment to the request for counsel, based on the instructions on the counsel-application form.

Request for Volunteer Counsel

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request—but cannot itself appoint—an attorney to volunteer in a civil case. The court explained that such requests are made sparingly. A person seeking volunteer counsel must first show that the claims appear likely to have merit. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, such as the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether conflicting evidence may require cross-examination.

The court noted that Greathouse’s new financial application said he had not worked since April 2022, had received no more than $200 from any source during the preceding 12 months, had no cash or bank-account funds, and owned no other property. But the application did not mention the settlement payment disclosed in the earlier application, and Greathouse did not explain whether he still had those funds or what had happened to them. The court therefore was not prepared to conclude that he could not afford counsel.

The court did not need to decide the financial issue, however. Even assuming Greathouse could not afford a lawyer, the court concluded that the request was premature. No defendant had responded to the complaint, and the complaint had not yet been tested on the merits. After reviewing the complaint, the court could not conclude that Greathouse’s allegations showed a sufficient likelihood of success to justify requesting volunteer counsel.

Disposition

The court denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. It denied the application for the court to request volunteer counsel without prejudice to renewal when a more fully developed record could show a sufficiently meritorious claim. The opinion did not decide the merits of Greathouse’s civil-rights claims.