Reed v. The City of New York

Background

Calvin Reed, who was representing himself, filed an application asking the court to seek pro bono counsel—meaning a lawyer willing to represent him without charging him. He said he needed counsel because he was no longer incarcerated and was simultaneously litigating three civil cases in district court.

Reed also moved for permission to file a third amended complaint adding 12 defendants, including 11 police officers and an assistant district attorney. He said he had only recently learned that the proposed defendants played a significant role in his arrest. The proposed pleading did not list the proposed defendants, describe conduct allegedly committed by them, or explain how the proposed claims related to the claims in the second amended complaint. The existing defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the claims against the proposed defendants were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations and did not relate back to the original filing date.

Request for Pro Bono Counsel

The court explained that federal courts may request—but cannot require—an attorney to represent a person who cannot afford counsel in a civil case. Courts consider factors including the apparent merit of the claims, the person’s ability to pay for a lawyer, efforts to obtain counsel, the availability of counsel, and the person’s ability to handle the case without assistance. A threshold requirement is a showing that the claims have substance or a likelihood of success.

The court concluded that it was not then in a position to determine that Reed’s claims had substance. Although the case had been on the docket since 2020, the court considered it procedurally early because Reed’s motion to amend left the pleadings unsettled and made it unclear which claims might continue and against which defendants. The court also stated that Reed’s release from prison and his pursuit of multiple civil cases did not, by themselves, establish a need for pro bono counsel.

The court therefore denied Reed’s request for pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renewal if he later made a stronger showing on the merits. The court also identified the New York Legal Assistance Group’s legal clinic as a possible source of limited assistance, while noting that the clinic was not part of or operated by the court.

Motion to Amend

The court did not decide Reed’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. It gave Reed until November 27, 2023, to file a reply brief addressing the specific arguments raised by the defendants. The court stated that it might decide the amendment motion on the existing record if Reed did not file a reply by that deadline.

Other Directions

The court reminded Reed to update the court whenever his address or other contact information changes. It directed the clerk to update Reed’s address on the docket and to mail the order, along with orders previously sent to correctional facilities, to the updated address. The order also informed Reed that, because he had been released from prison, he could choose to receive case documents electronically instead of by regular mail.

Disposition

The order denied the motion for pro bono counsel. It did not grant or deny the motion for leave to amend; it set a deadline for Reed’s reply. The order was signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge.