Thompson v. City of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-10371
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Moses denied Thompson’s request for volunteer counsel, without prejudice to renewing it if circumstances change.
Kwaine Thompson, whose request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice and whose deposition may be postponed if he cannot hear or see well enough to testify.
What happened
In Thompson v. City of New York, Kwaine Thompson asked the court for volunteer legal counsel and updated his address. He was facing a deposition while incarcerated.
The court explained that civil litigants are not automatically entitled to lawyers and that volunteer counsel is requested only in especially important cases. Although some of Thompson’s claims had survived an earlier request to dismiss them, the court said he had not provided supporting evidence for most of those claims and did not need legal research or writing skills to handle the deposition.
Judge Moses denied the request for pro bono counsel at this time, without prejudice to Thompson seeking counsel again if circumstances change. The court also said Thompson could ask to postpone the deposition if he could not hear or see well enough to testify because he had not received hearing aids and glasses.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10371
- Barbara Moses
- Feb. 23, 2024
Background
Kwaine Thompson sent a letter updating his address and requesting pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court also learned that Thompson had not yet been provided with hearing aids and glasses. Thompson was facing a deposition while incarcerated.
Legal standard
The court explained that, unlike in criminal cases, civil courts generally are not required to provide counsel to people who cannot afford it. A court cannot force a lawyer to represent a civil litigant; it may only request that a lawyer volunteer. The court must consider factors including the apparent strength of the claims, the person’s ability to pay for a private lawyer, efforts to find a lawyer, the availability of volunteer counsel, and the person’s ability to gather facts and handle the issues without assistance. As a threshold matter, the person must show that the claims have substance or a likelihood of success.
Ruling
The court determined that Thompson’s application for counsel must be denied at this time. It noted that some of his claims had survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but that he had not yet provided corroborating evidence for most of those claims. The court also found that, although facing a deposition while incarcerated was challenging, the situation was not unique and did not require legal research or writing skills. The denial was without prejudice to Thompson seeking pro bono counsel again if circumstances warrant.
The court further stated that if Thompson could not hear or see well enough to testify at his deposition, he could request that the deposition be postponed until he obtained the necessary equipment. The court said that Thompson’s current conditions of confinement were not the subject of this action and could not be remedied in this case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.