Moore v. New York City Police Department
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-01300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moore v. New York City Police Department, Judge Ramos denied counsel without prejudice and reiterated permission to file a second amended complaint.
Ali Alexander Moore, who remains allowed to file a second amended complaint by November 13, 2023, and may renew his request for appointed counsel later; the defendants are not otherwise addressed by this order.
What happened
In Moore v. New York City Police Department, pro se plaintiff Ali Alexander Moore asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer and to extend the deadline for amending his complaint.
The court denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Moore may renew it later. The court said it could not yet conclude that his claims were likely to have merit. It also noted that Moore had already been allowed to file a second amended complaint by November 13, 2023, and repeated that he could do so.
Judge Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions. The order did not separately state that Moore’s request for more time was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Moore v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:23-cv-01300
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Ali Alexander Moore submitted two requests dated October 12, 2023. He asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him, and moved for an extension of time to amend his complaint.
Request for Counsel
The court denied the request for appointed counsel at this stage. It explained that courts cannot require attorneys to represent pro se litigants in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney for an indigent litigant through the court’s Pro Bono Panel.
The court applied the standard requiring it first to consider whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may consider additional factors, including whether the litigant can handle the case without assistance. The court said it could not yet conclude that Moore’s claims were likely to have merit. It therefore denied the application for counsel without prejudice to a possible later renewal.
Amended Complaint and Disposition
The court stated that it had already granted Moore leave on October 12, 2023, to file a second amended complaint by November 13, 2023. The court repeated that Moore could file a second amended complaint. The order did not separately state that the motion seeking an extension of time was granted or denied.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate motions listed as Documents 12, 17, 19, and 20. Judge Ramos signed the order on October 17, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.