Saunders v. Edward
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-06370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saunders v. Edward, Judge Roman denied Tori Saunders’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the case was too early to assess.
Tori Saunders’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice; the opinion also directed the clerk to mail her the order and record service.
What happened
In Saunders v. Edward, Tori Saunders asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent her without charge. The court treated her letter about requesting pro bono counsel as a formal request for appointment of counsel.
The court said it could consider asking a volunteer lawyer to represent a person without a lawyer, but first had to assess whether the person’s claims appeared likely to succeed. Because the defendants had appeared but had not yet answered, the court said it could not fairly evaluate Saunders’s chances, the complexity of the issues, or whether she could handle the case without help.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Saunders’s motion without prejudice, allowing her to renew the request later. The clerk was directed to close the motion on the docket and mail Saunders a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Saunders v. Edward · No. 7:23-cv-06370
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 8, 2024
Background
The court received a January 4, 2024 letter from Tori Saunders asking about the process for requesting pro bono counsel. The court construed the letter as a motion to appoint a volunteer lawyer to represent Saunders. The opinion states that the defendants had been served and had appeared, but had not filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint. Their response deadline was January 26, 2024.
Legal standard
In a civil case, the court generally cannot force a lawyer to represent a person without a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may use its discretion to ask its pro bono panel—lawyers who volunteer to accept cases—to represent an indigent litigant. The court must first consider whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have substance, meaning some chance of success. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider factors such as whether the litigant can find a lawyer independently, whether the litigant can handle the case without assistance, the factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether skilled cross-examination may be needed.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the request could not be granted at this early stage. Because the defendants had not yet answered or otherwise responded, the court said it could not determine whether Saunders’s position showed a strong chance of success or whether the case involved particularly complex legal issues. The court also could not yet conclude that Saunders was unable to handle the case without assistance, although that assessment could change as the case progressed.
Disposition
The court denied Saunders’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew it later in the proceedings. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17, mail Saunders a copy of the order at the address listed on the electronic docket, and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.