Johnson v. The City of New York
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-06127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Johnson v. Benn, Judge Clarke appointed volunteer counsel for Kamar Johnson during discovery.
Kamar Johnson, an incarcerated plaintiff seeking volunteer counsel, and any volunteer attorney who might represent him during discovery.
What happened
In Johnson v. Benn, Kamar Johnson had previously asked the court to appoint a lawyer, but the court had denied that request while allowing him to renew it later. Johnson said the case involved complex medical issues requiring expert testimony, that several law firms had declined to represent him, and that he was incarcerated.
The court considered whether Johnson’s claims appeared substantial and other factors, including his ability to investigate and present the case and the complexity of the legal issues. The court had denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and concluded that appointing a volunteer lawyer for discovery was appropriate.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted Johnson volunteer counsel without requiring a new motion and directed the Clerk of Court to seek a volunteer attorney. The court warned that no funds were available for civil-case lawyers, that finding a volunteer could take time, and that no attorney was guaranteed to accept the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-06127
- Clarke
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Kamar Johnson previously requested appointment of a volunteer lawyer. The court had denied that request without prejudice and allowed him to renew it after dispositive-motion practice if circumstances warranted. Johnson did not file a new motion. The opinion states that he declared the case involved complex medical issues requiring expert testimony, that he had contacted several law firms without obtaining a lawyer, and that he was incarcerated.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may appoint an attorney for a person unable to afford counsel. The court first considers whether the plaintiff’s position appears likely to have substance. It then considers factors such as the plaintiff’s ability to obtain representation independently, investigate important facts, present the case, and handle the legal issues; whether conflicting evidence may require cross-examination; and whether appointing counsel would likely lead to a fair determination.
Ruling
The court stated that it had denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Considering that ruling and the relevant factors, the court found it appropriate to appoint volunteer counsel to represent Johnson for discovery. The court granted counsel on its own initiative even though Johnson had not filed a new motion.
The Clerk of Court was directed to try to locate a volunteer attorney. The court explained that there were no funds to hire counsel in civil cases and that a volunteer might not be found quickly, or at all. Johnson was told to be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The Office of Pro Se Litigation was asked to update the court by February 16, 2024, on whether an attorney was willing to represent him.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.