Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2024

Xue v. Columbia University in the City of New York

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-07502
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Xue v. Columbia University, Judge Broderick ordered service of the disability-discrimination lawsuit and denied appointed counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

Qishen Xue, the five named defendants, and the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service responsible for service.

What happened

In Xue v. Columbia University in the City of New York, Qishen Xue, who is representing herself, alleged disability discrimination. The court understood the complaint to raise claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and state law, but did not decide whether those claims have merit.

Because Xue was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve Columbia University in the City of New York, Columbia Global Centers, Linda Amrou, Lee Bollinger, and Madeleine Zelin. The court said service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued, unless Xue requests more time.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Xue’s application for appointed volunteer counsel without prejudice to renewing it later because the case was still too early for the court to assess its merits. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Xue v. Columbia University in the City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-07502
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 1, 2024

Background

Qishen Xue, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint alleging that Columbia University in the City of New York, Columbia Global Centers, Linda Amrou, Lee Bollinger, and Madeleine Zelin discriminated against her because of a disability. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and state law. The court had previously allowed Xue to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Service of Process

Because Xue was permitted to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service of the summonses and amended complaint. The Clerk was instructed to issue summonses, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Columbia University in the City of New York, Columbia Global Centers, Linda Amrou, Lee Bollinger, and Madeleine Zelin.

The court stated that if the amended complaint is not served within 90 days after the summonses are issued, Xue should request an extension of time. It also required Xue to notify the court in writing of any address change and warned that the action may be dismissed if she fails to do so.

Request for Counsel

Xue applied for the court to request volunteer legal counsel. The court considered the governing factors, including the apparent merits of the case, Xue’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and her ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits, Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the application for volunteer counsel without prejudice to Xue’s renewing the request later.

Disposition

The court directed issuance and service of the summonses and amended complaint. It denied Xue’s application for volunteer counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Xue permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Xue’s discrimination claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.