Evans v. The City of New York

Background

Jeniere K. Evans, who was proceeding without a lawyer, applied for appointment of pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). She sought counsel to help prepare a motion for default judgment. Evans stated that she had contacted several law firms, pro bono lawyers, and a bar association, but the court found that her application did not show that she had completed those inquiries or contacted the legal-services organizations to which she had been referred.

Legal standard

The court explained that civil litigants do not generally have a constitutional right to appointed counsel. A district court has broad discretion to request a volunteer attorney for a person unable to afford counsel. Before considering appointment, the court must determine whether the person can afford or obtain counsel. The court must also consider whether the person’s legal position appears likely to have substance, meaning that the claims appear strong enough to warrant assistance.

Court’s analysis

The court assumed that Evans was indigent, or unable to afford counsel, for purposes of the order. It nevertheless held that Evans had not shown a reasonably diligent effort to obtain a lawyer. The court noted that the Brooklyn Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service had provided a referral and recommended that Evans arrange a consultation, but the application did not show that she did so. The New York County Lawyers Association had also provided contact information for five legal-services programs, but Evans did not indicate that she contacted them.

The court also found that Evans’s position was not likely to have substance. Evans said her earlier motion for default judgment had been denied because she failed to follow the court’s rules. The court explained that the earlier order had identified not only rule violations but also substantive defects, including that the motion addressed only Evans’s state-law claims and that a false-arrest claim could not proceed where probable cause existed for the arrest. The court further explained that a defendant’s default does not automatically establish liability; the court must still determine whether the allegations provide a proper basis for liability and relief. For substantially the reasons stated in its March 20, 2023 order dismissing Evans’s claims against the City, the court could not conclude that Evans’s allegations against the remaining defendant were likely to support default judgment.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Evans’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Evans a copy of the order at the address of record and terminate the motion at docket entry 48.