Booker v. NYS DOCCS
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-02355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Booker v. Sefman, Judge Roman denied Booker’s request for free legal counsel without prejudice because he had shown he could litigate the case.
Diquan Booker’s request for appointed counsel was denied for now, but the court allowed him to renew the request later. The order did not resolve the underlying case.
What happened
In Diquan Booker v. Sgt. Sefman, pro se plaintiff Diquan Booker asked the court to appoint a free lawyer to represent him in his civil case.
The court explained that it may request a lawyer for an eligible person but cannot require a lawyer to accept a civil case. It found that Booker had prosecuted the case himself, including participating in a fully briefed summary-judgment motion and submitting additional documents.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied Booker’s request without prejudice and allowed him to renew it later. The ruling addressed only the request for counsel, not the underlying claims or the pending summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Booker v. NYS DOCCS · No. 7:22-cv-02355
- Nelson Roman
- May 16, 2024
Background
Diquan Booker, who was representing himself, asked the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him. Booker dated the request May 13, 2024.
Legal standard
The court explained that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), it may use its discretion to ask a lawyer on the court’s pro bono panel to represent an eligible self-represented litigant. The court must first consider whether the person’s position appears likely to have substance. If that threshold is met, the court may also consider factors such as whether the person can obtain a lawyer independently, whether the person can handle the case without help, the factual investigation required, the complexity of the legal issues, and whether expert questioning of witnesses would be needed.
Court’s reasoning
The court said it could not grant Booker’s request at that stage of the case. The parties had fully briefed a motion for summary judgment, and Booker had also submitted additional documents. The court stated that it would consider those documents under the special consideration given to filings by people representing themselves. It concluded that Booker had shown himself capable of prosecuting the action throughout the proceedings.
Ruling
The court DENIED Booker’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew at a later stage. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the pending motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Booker a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.