Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 5, 2024

Smith v. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-06143
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Smith v. Manhattan Institute, Judge Schofield ordered Marshals service and denied counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess.

Who this affects

Oliver D. Smith must rely on the U.S. Marshals Service for service of the summons and complaint, may renew his request for counsel later, and was denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is to be served.

What happened

In Smith v. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Oliver D. Smith, representing himself, sued the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research for defamation under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. He had permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

The court instructed the Clerk to issue a summons, complete the service paperwork, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendant could be served. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued. Smith also asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Smith’s request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, after certifying that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Smith v. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research · No. 1:23-cv-06143
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 5, 2024

Background

Oliver D. Smith, who was representing himself, brought a defamation action against Manhattan Institute for Policy Research under the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed Smith to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of the Defendant

Because Smith was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court stated that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendant. The court instructed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete the U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form with the defendant’s address, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed for service.

The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued. If service is not completed within that period, Smith should request an extension. The court also directed Smith to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Request for Counsel

Smith filed an application asking the court to request volunteer legal counsel. The court explained that relevant considerations include the apparent strength of the case, the plaintiff’s efforts to find a lawyer, and the plaintiff’s ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the proceedings were at an early stage, the court could not yet assess the merits of the action.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Smith’s request for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the Clerk to mail Smith an information package.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.