Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-00182
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYC, Judge Ramos denied without prejudice Chowdhury’s request for appointed counsel.
The ruling affects Mohammad Monirul Islam Chowdhury’s request for a court-appointed volunteer attorney; it did not resolve his underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYC, Mohammad Monirul Islam Chowdhury asked the court to appoint a free lawyer to represent him.
The court said it could request a lawyer through its pro bono program only if Chowdhury’s claims appeared likely to have merit. Because the court could not make that finding at this stage, it denied the request without prejudice, allowing him to renew it later.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Chowdhury v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development, NYC · No. 1:24-cv-00182
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff Mohammad Monirul Islam Chowdhury requested that the Court appoint pro bono counsel. The opinion identifies him as a pro se litigant, meaning he was representing himself.
Court’s Analysis
The Court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent people in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the Court may use its discretion to ask its Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney through the Court’s Pro Bono Panel. The Court must first determine whether the litigant’s position appears likely to have merit. If that threshold is met, the Court considers additional factors, including the litigant’s ability to handle the case without assistance.
The Court stated that it could not conclude at that time that Plaintiff’s claims were likely to have merit. It noted that this assessment could change as the case progressed.
Ruling
The Court denied the application for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice to possible renewal later in the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 3. The order did not decide the merits of Plaintiff’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.