Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Jonathan Nathaniel Murray requested pro bono counsel via motion dated June 17, 2025. Plaintiff holds IFP status and his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL survived Defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants served discovery requests on November 21, 2024, but Plaintiff failed to respond to First Set of Interrogatories and provided inadequate response to document requests. Court denied motion for pro bono counsel.
Issues
The court considered whether to appoint pro bono counsel for Plaintiff Jonathan Nathaniel Murray in his civil rights case against Brag Sales Inc. et al. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff had not demonstrated inability to gather facts or deal with issues without attorney assistance, and that the appointment would not lead to more efficient resolution.
Holdings
The court denied Plaintiff Jonathan Nathaniel Murray's request for pro bono counsel in this civil rights case involving employment discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. The Magistrate Judge found that while Plaintiff's claims survived a motion to dismiss and he was granted IFP status, he failed to demonstrate that he will be unable to gather facts and deal with the issues without attorney assistance. The court noted Plaintiff had not explained what efforts he made to obtain a lawyer beyond vague assertions, and it is not apparent that appointing pro bono counsel would lead to a more efficient resolution of this case.
Legal Principles
The in forma pauperis statute (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)) permits courts to request attorneys to represent persons unable to afford counsel. In civil cases, courts have broad discretion when deciding whether to seek pro bono representation, but have no authority to 'appoint' counsel—only to request that an attorney volunteer. Courts must request pro bono counsel sparingly, with reference to public benefit, to preserve volunteer-lawyer time for truly deserving litigants. When considering pro bono requests, courts should evaluate factors including: whether the litigant demonstrated indigency, whether the claim seems likely to be of substance, the litigant's ability to investigate crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence requires cross-examination, the litigant's ability to present the case, complexity of legal issues, and any special reason why appointment would lead to a just determination. Courts should neither apply bright-line rules nor automatically deny requests.
Precedent Name
- Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa
- Jimenez-Fogarty v. Fogarty
- Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
- Jagnanan v. Moey, Inc.
- Hendricks v. Coughlin
- Hodge v. Police Officers
Cited Statute
- Title VII employment discrimination
- New York City Human Rights Law
- Section 1981 claim
- New York State Human Rights Law
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- IFP statute
Judge Name
Valerie Figueredo
Passage Text
- Unlike in criminal cases, in civil cases, there is no requirement that courts supply indigent litigants with counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, the courts have 'broad discretion' when deciding whether to seek pro bono representation for a civil litigant.
- For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for pro bono counsel at this juncture is denied without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54. SO ORDERED.
- Plaintiff, however, has not demonstrated that he will be unable to gather the facts and deal with the issues in this case without the assistance of an attorney.