Cepeda v. Griffin
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-04205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cepeda v. Griffin, Judge Ramos denied Cepeda’s request for free appointed counsel, without prejudice to renewing it later.
Ramon Cepeda's request for appointed volunteer counsel; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Cepeda v. Griffin, Ramon Cepeda, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer on January 9, 2024.
The court said it could ask its volunteer-lawyer panel to consider representing a person who cannot afford counsel, but first had to decide whether the person’s claims appeared likely to have merit. The court could not make that finding at this stage.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request without prejudice, meaning Cepeda may renew it later as the case develops. The court directed the clerk to close the motion, but did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Cepeda v. Griffin · No. 1:21-cv-04205
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 15, 2024
Background
Ramon Cepeda, the plaintiff, was representing himself in this civil case against Linda Griffin and other defendants. On January 9, 2024, he asked the court to appoint free volunteer counsel. The request was filed as Doc. 41.
Legal standard
The court explained that it cannot force attorneys to represent people who are representing themselves in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may use its discretion to ask its Pro Bono Panel to consider representing a person who cannot afford a lawyer. Before doing so, the court must first decide whether the person’s position appears likely to have merit. If that requirement is met, the court may consider additional factors, including the person’s ability to handle the case without assistance.
Ruling
The court said it could not conclude at that time that Cepeda’s claims were likely to have merit, although that assessment could change as the case progressed. Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore denied without prejudice the request for appointed volunteer counsel, allowing possible renewal later in the case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 41. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.