Brown v. New York City Human Resources Administration
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-09113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brown v. New York City Human Resources Administration, Judge Ramos denied Brown’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Deshanae L. Brown’s request for court-appointed volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Brown v. New York City Human Resources Administration, Deshanae L. Brown asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent her at no cost.
The court said it could ask lawyers on its volunteer panel to represent a person without a lawyer, but first had to determine whether the person’s claims appeared likely to have merit. The court could not make that determination at this stage.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request without prejudice, meaning Brown may renew it later as the case develops. The clerk was directed to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Brown v. New York City Human Resources Administration · No. 1:23-cv-09113
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 3, 2024
Request
On November 6, 2023, Deshanae L. Brown asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer to represent her without charge. The request was filed as Document 11.
Legal standard
The court explained that it cannot require attorneys to represent people without lawyers in civil cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the court may use its discretion to ask the Pro Se Office to seek a volunteer attorney from the court’s Pro Bono Panel. Before doing so, the court must first determine whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court considers additional factors, including the person’s ability to handle the case without assistance.
Ruling
The court stated that it was unable at that time to conclude that Brown’s claims were likely to have merit, while noting that this could change as the case progressed. The application for appointment of pro bono counsel was therefore DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later stage. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.