Pepaj v. Innovative Facility Service
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-07159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pepaj v. Innovative Facility Services, Judge Moses denied Valbona Pepaj’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, allowing renewal after the record develops.
Valbona Pepaj’s request for volunteer counsel was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ pending challenges to the default-judgment motion were not decided in this opinion.
What happened
In Valbona Pepaj v. Innovative Facility Services, LLC, et al., Pepaj asked the court to provide a volunteer lawyer for her civil case. The court noted that the complaint had not yet been tested and that the defendants were challenging her request for a default judgment.
The court explained that civil litigants generally are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer. Instead, the court may ask a volunteer attorney to represent someone, and it ordinarily must first determine that the person’s claims have some likelihood of success. Other considerations include the person’s ability to pay, efforts to find a lawyer, availability of counsel, and ability to handle the case without assistance.
Judge Barbara Moses denied Pepaj’s request without prejudice. The court said a more developed record was needed before deciding whether her claims and the other factors justified requesting volunteer counsel, so Pepaj may renew the request later if she can show a potentially meritorious claim.
The detailed version
- Pepaj v. Innovative Facility Service · No. 1:23-cv-07159
- John Cronan
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
Valbona Pepaj asked the court to provide her with pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer, in this civil case. The opinion says Pepaj filed her pending motion for a default judgment without a lawyer. In response, the defendants asked the court to deny that motion, vacate the certificate of default, and allow them to respond to the complaint with a motion to dismiss and/or a motion to compel arbitration.
The court also noted that Pepaj had contacted the New York Legal Assistance Group Clinic for Pro Se Litigants. The clinic could answer questions, provide guidance, and help her interpret court orders, but it could not provide an attorney to appear for her in the case.
Legal Standard
The court explained that civil litigants generally have no right to have the court supply counsel. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court may request that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant, but it may not compel an attorney to accept the appointment. Courts should make such requests sparingly because volunteer lawyer time is limited.
The court must consider the merits of the claim, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to gather facts and address the issues without a lawyer. As a threshold matter, the plaintiff ordinarily must show that the claim has substance and some likelihood of success.
Ruling
The court concluded that Pepaj’s application must be denied at this time because the complaint had not yet been tested on the merits. The court stated that a more fully developed record was necessary to determine whether the merits of the case, together with the other factors, warranted requesting pro bono counsel. The application was therefore DENIED without prejudice to renewal when Pepaj could demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.