Walters v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-07782
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Walters v. City of New York, Judge Parker granted Walters’s request for volunteer counsel limited to settlement negotiations and a settlement conference.
Sheron Walters received a limited grant of access to requested volunteer counsel for settlement-related matters. The City of New York remained the defendant, and the clerk was directed to try to locate a volunteer attorney.
What happened
In Walters v. City of New York, Sheron Walters asked for volunteer legal counsel to help with settlement negotiations and an upcoming settlement conference. The court had already allowed Walters to proceed without paying filing fees and found that the civil-rights claim appeared substantial enough to justify assistance.
The court granted the request for the limited purpose of helping Walters understand his rights, value the claim, communicate with the court and the City, and participate in settlement. The court directed the clerk to try to find a volunteer lawyer, but the order did not require that lawyer to handle discovery, respond to dispositive motions, or provide broader representation.
Judge Katharine H. Parker stated that the representation would ordinarily end when settlement negotiations ended and ordered that a copy of the order be mailed to Walters.
The detailed version
- Walters v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-07782
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 12, 2024
Background
At a January 11, 2024 case-management conference, Plaintiff Sheron Walters requested pro bono counsel—an attorney who volunteers legal services—for settlement negotiations and a planned settlement conference. The court scheduled the settlement conference for April 1, 2024, by Microsoft Teams.
Walters had filed a request to proceed without paying court filing fees, and the court had granted that request. The court therefore found that Walters qualified as indigent for purposes of seeking volunteer counsel. Walters’s complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and the court found that the claim was “of substance” for purposes of the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, in civil cases, a court generally cannot require the government to provide a lawyer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may request that an attorney volunteer to represent a person unable to afford counsel. The court must consider whether the person is indigent, whether the claim appears substantial, and factors such as the person’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the issues, and whether counsel would help produce a fair result.
The court determined that counsel would likely assist Walters in reaching a reasonable settlement. In particular, counsel could help Walters understand his rights, value the claim, and communicate factual and legal positions to the court and opposing counsel. The court concluded that limited volunteer representation could lead to a fair and efficient resolution.
Order and Scope of Representation
The court granted Walters’s request for pro bono counsel for the limited purposes of assisting with settlement negotiations and representing Walters at the April 1, 2024 settlement conference. The clerk was directed to attempt to locate a volunteer attorney; the order did not state that a lawyer had already been secured.
The volunteer lawyer would not be required to handle other aspects of the case, including discovery or responses to dispositive motions. Unless the court later expanded the scope, the representation would end when settlement negotiations concluded. The court did not find that broader representation was appropriate at that time and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Walters.
Disposition
This was an ancillary order about volunteer counsel. It did not decide the merits of Walters’s Section 1983 claim or otherwise resolve the underlying case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.