Windsor v. The City of New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALLEN WINDSOR,

Plaintiff,

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE LEGAL AID

23-CV-1800 (LTS)

SOCIETY; ELIZA ORLINS ESQ.; NYC

COURT SOCIETY; NEW YORK POLICE

ORDER TO AMEND

DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY DIVISION; NYC

SAFE HOTLINE TELE SERVICE & PORT

AUTHORITY DIV.,

Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 43 U.S.C. § 1983, federal

criminal statutes, and state law. By order dated March 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to

construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –

to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially

plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that

the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79

(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating

legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those

facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

BACKGROUND

The following facts regarding events that allegedly occurred between November 10,

2011, and May 18, 2020 are drawn from Plaintiff’s complaint. In 2011, Plaintiff attempted to

give law-enforcement officials information about potential criminal or terrorist activity that he

learned about on Craigslist, but instead they arrested and prosecuted him. (ECF 1 at 7-8.)

Plaintiff refers to a “second trial” that occurred in May 2017; it is unclear what happened at the

first trial, what the outcome of the second trial was, and what took place after that. (Id.) The

complaint asserts claims of “Gender Identity Discrimination, Variant Discriminations, Witness

Tampering, Evidence Tampering, False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution,” and also references 18

U.S.C. § 242, defamation, and “state tort law.” (Id. at 1 and 5.) Plaintiff names the following

Defendants: (1) the City of New York; (2) the Legal Aid Society; (3) Eliza Orlins, Esq.; (4) the

“NYC Court Society”; (5) the New York Police Department; (6) the “New York County District

Attorney Division”; and (7) the “NYC Safe Hotline Tele. Service & Port Authority Div.”

Plaintiff previously filed a similar complaint against some of the same Defendants that

may arise out of some of the same events. See Allen1 v. City of New York, ECF 1:20-CV-3868, 1

(LLS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2020) (“Allen I”). On June 29, 2020, Judge Stanton issued an order

directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. ECF 1:20-CV-3868, 4. The clerk’s office mailed

a copy of that order to Plaintiff’s address of record, but it was returned as undeliverable on

September 3, 2020. Thereafter, on October 2, 2020, Judge Stanton dismissed the action, because

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court. ECF

1:20-CV-2868, 5. The order of dismissal and civil judgment were also returned as

undeliverable.2

DISCUSSION

A. Private prosecution

Plaintiff appears to seek the criminal prosecution of the defendants or others. The Court

must dismiss those claims. A private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal action in federal court.

See Leek v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981) (prisoners lack standing to seek the issuance

of an arrest warrant); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen

lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”). And

1 Plaintiff listed his name in that complaint as Windsor Allen, but in this complaint it is

listed as Allen Windsor.

2 A copy of that order is attached to this order for Plaintiff’s convenience.

because federal prosecutors possess discretionary authority to bring criminal actions, they are

“immune from control or interference by citizen or court.” Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts

Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1972). Accordingly, the Court dismisses any claims in

which Plaintiff seeks the criminal prosecution of the defendants or others, for failure to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

B. Office of the New York County District Attorney

The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Office of

the New York County District Attorney under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

“[A]s a general rule, state governments may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived

their Eleventh Amendment immunity or unless Congress has abrogate[d] the states’ Eleventh

Amendment immunity . . . .” Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted, second alteration in original). This immunity shields States

from claims for money damages, injunctive relief, and retrospective declaratory relief. See Green

v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72-74 (1985); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

89, 101-02 (1984). “[T]he immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment extends beyond the

states themselves to state agents and state instrumentalities that are, effectively, arms of a state.”

Gollomp, 568 F.3d at 366 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts have held that

an office of a District Attorney in the State of New York is afforded Eleventh Amendment

immunity with regard to its decisions to prosecute. See, e.g., Cano v. Cohen, No. 1:18-CV-

11550, 2019 WL 4933580, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2019) (collecting cases).

Congress has not abrogated the States’ immunity for claims under Section 1983. See

Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990). And the State of New York has

not waived its immunity to suit in federal court. See Trotman v. Palisades Interstate Park

Comm’n, 557 F.2d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 1977). Plaintiff sues the Office of the New York County

District Attorney, apparently because of its decision to prosecute him. That Office is covered by

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and the Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims

under Section 1983 against this defendant. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

C. Legal Aid Society and Eliza Orlins, Esq.

Plaintiff names the Legal Aid Society and a Legal Aid attorney, Eliza Orlins, as

defendants. A claim for relief under Section 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant

acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Private parties therefore generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of

America, 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch.

Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d

307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not

private parties.”). Absent special circumstances suggesting concerted action between an attorney

and a state representative, see Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 656 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)), the representation of a defendant by

private counsel in state criminal proceedings does not constitute the degree of state involvement

or interference necessary to establish a claim under Section 1983, regardless of whether that

attorney is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. See Bourdon v.

Loughren, 386 F.3d 88, 90 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25

(1981)); see also Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that a legal aid

organization ordinarily is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983). Because Defendants Legal

Aid Society and Eliza Orlins are private parties who are not alleged to work for any state or other

government body, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against these defendants under Section 1983

upon which relief may be granted.

D. City agencies and the City of New York

Plaintiff’s claims against the “NYC Court Society, “the New York Police Department,

and the “NYC Safe Hotline Tele. Service & Port Authority Div.” must be dismissed because an

agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396

(“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be

brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where

otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007);

see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff

is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”).

Plaintiff also names the City of New York as a defendant. When a plaintiff sues a

municipality under Section 1983, it is not enough for the plaintiff to allege that one of the

municipality’s employees or agents engaged in some wrongdoing. The plaintiff must show that

the municipality itself caused the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. See Connick v. Thompson,

563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“A municipality or other local government may be liable under this

section [1983] if the governmental body itself ‘subjects’ a person to a deprivation of rights or

‘causes’ a person ‘to be subjected’ to such deprivation.”) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.

of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978)); Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 333 (2d Cir.

2011). In other words, to state a Section 1983 claim against a municipality, the plaintiff must

allege facts showing (1) the existence of a municipal policy, custom, or practice, and (2) that the

policy, custom, or practice caused the violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Jones

v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2012); Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v.

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (internal citations omitted).

Plaintiff has alleged no facts showing that a policy, custom, or practice of the City of

New York caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se

status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which names the City of

New York as a defendant and alleges sufficient facts to state a municipal liability claim under

Section 1983.

E. Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is found in the “general or residual

[state] statute [of limitations] for personal injury actions.” Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d

76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989)). In New York, that

period is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). Section 1983 claims generally accrue when a

plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the claim. Hogan v.

Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 518 (2d Cir. 2013). Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to this

complaint occurred between November 10, 2011, and May 18, 2020, but he did not file this

complaint until March 1, 2023. Thus, any claim that arose before March 1, 2020, are presumably

untimely. See Walker v. Jastremski, 430 F.3d 560, 562-64 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing prison

mailbox rule, under which the date a prisoner signs a court submission qualifies as the filing

date).

The doctrine of equitable tolling permits a court, “under compelling circumstances, [to]

make narrow exceptions to the statute of limitations in order ‘to prevent inequity.’” In re U.S.

Lines, Inc., 318 F.3d 432, 436 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). The statute of limitations may be

equitably tolled, for example, when a defendant fraudulently conceals from a plaintiff the fact

that the plaintiff has a cause of action, or when the defendant induces the plaintiff to forego a

lawsuit until the statute of limitations has expired. See Pearl, 296 F.3d at 82-83. In addition, New

York law provides that, where a person “is under a disability because of . . . insanity at the time

the cause of action accrues,” the applicable statute of limitations will be tolled. N.Y. C.P.L.R.

§ 208; Gardner v. Wansart, No. 05-CV-3351, 2006 WL 2742043, at *5 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25,

2006) (although mental illness is on its own insufficient for equitable tolling purposes, tolling is

appropriate if a plaintiff is insane at the time the cause of action accrues and is “unable to protect

[his] legal rights because of an overall inability to function in society”).

Because the failure to file an action within the limitations period is an affirmative

defense, a plaintiff is generally not required to plead that the case is timely filed. See Abbas v.

Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 640 (2d Cir. 2007). Dismissal is appropriate, however, where the existence

of an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, is plain from the face of the pleading.

See Walters v. Indus. And Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., 651 F.3d 280, 293 (2d Cir. 2011)

(“[D]istrict courts may dismiss an action sua sponte on limitations grounds in certain

circumstances where the facts supporting the statute of limitations defense are set forth in the

papers plaintiff himself submitted.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Pino v.

Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1995) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of complaint as frivolous on

statute of limitations grounds); see also Abbas, 480 F.3d at 640 (concluding that district court

should grant notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissing complaint sua sponte on

statute of limitations grounds).

There are no facts in the complaint suggesting that there is a basis for equitably tolling

the statute of limitations in this case. Because the Court has granted Plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint, the Court also grants him leave to address the timeliness of his claims.

F. State law claims

Plaintiff asserts state law claims. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over state law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out

of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should

decline the exercise of jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7

(1988)).

Because it is not clear whether Plaintiff can state a federal claim, the Court will determine

at a later stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims Plaintiff

asserts. See Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006)

(“Subsection (c) of § 1367 ‘confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by

enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise.’”) (quoting City of

Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)).

G. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts

generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.

2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has

cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to

amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid

claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the

Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.

In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must

provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each

defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff

should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to

consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information

should include:

a) the names and titles of all relevant people;

b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to

do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where

each event occurred;

c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and

d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory

relief.

Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his

federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff

is entitled to relief.

Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the

original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint

must be repeated in the amended complaint

Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”)

Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic

staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil

lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the

court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se

party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to

this order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards

set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit

within 60 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and

label the document with docket number 23-CV-1800 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is

attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the

time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2023

New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

Chief United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

_____CV_______________

(Include case number if one has been

Write the full name of each plaintiff.

assigned)

AMENDED

-against-

COMPLAINT

Do you want a jury trial?

☐ Yes ☐ No

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more

space, please write “see attached” in the space above and

attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of

names. The names listed above must be identical to those

contained in Section II.

NOTICE

The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed

with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full

birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account

number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of

an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of

cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving

diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United

States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount

in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may

be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff.

What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case?

☐ Federal Question

☐ Diversity of Citizenship

A. If you checked Federal Question

Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?

B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship

1. Citizenship of the parties

Of what State is each party a citizen?

The plaintiff , , is a citizen of the State of

(Plaintiff’s name)

(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.)

or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or

subject of the foreign state of

.

If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing

information for each additional plaintiff.

If the defendant is an individual:

The defendant, , is a citizen of the State of

(Defendant’s name)

or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or

subject of the foreign state of

.

If the defendant is a corporation:

The defendant, , is incorporated under the laws of

the State of

and has its principal place of business in the State of

or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state)

and has its principal place of business in .

If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing

information for each additional defendant.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff Information

Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional

pages if needed.

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Street Address

County, City State Zip Code

Telephone Number Email Address (if available)

B. Defendant Information

To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the

correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the

defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the

caption. Attach additional pages if needed.

Defendant 1:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 2:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 3:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 4:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Place(s) of occurrence:

Date(s) of occurrence:

FACTS:

State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were

harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach

additional pages if needed.

INJURIES:

If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical

treatment, if any, you required and received.

IV. RELIEF

State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order.

V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS

By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the

complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported

by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual

contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have

evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;

and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11.

I agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I

understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may

result in the dismissal of my case.

Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to

proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.

Dated Plaintiff’s Signature

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Street Address

County, City State Zip Code

Telephone Number Email Address (if available)

I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically:

☐ Yes ☐ No

If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your

complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.

= = eee 14 ESE ° .

New York ME Legal Assistance Group District of New York

The NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York provides free limited legal

assistance to individuals who are representing themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits

in federal court in Manhattan and White Plains. The clinic is staffed by attorneys, law students, and paralegals.

Information given to clinic staff is confidential.

Clinic Staff Can: Clinic Staff Cannot:

Advise on filing cases in federal court e Assist with federal civil cases that belong in a

including on the issue of whether a = 3 different federal court, such as the Eastern District of

should be filed in the Southern District of New York, which covers of New York, which covers

New York or somewiierocisd Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Nassau and

Provide legal advice in response to questions Suffolk Counties;

that come up at any stage of litigation; e Assist with an appeal of your federal case;

Assist in getting additional information or e Assist with state court cases, bankruptcy court cases,

research into the legal issue in your case; or criminal cases; oo

Review and explain court orders and filings ¢ Pay any of the costs associated with filing or

by your opponent, and provide an overview of defending a lawsuit in federal court;

the federal legal process in civil cases e File documents with the court on your behalf;

generally; e Appear on your behalf other than representation at a

Assist with motions, discovery, and strategy; mediation through the Southern District’s Alternative

Assist with getting ready for depositions, Dispute Resolution Program, a court-ordered

pretrial conferences, mediations, and court settlement conference, or, in appropriate cases, a

appearances; deposition;

Provide forms and instructions manuals; ° Write court documents for you, or

In appropriate cases, help you retain bono ° Conduct an investigation into the facts of your case.

counsel;

Inappropriate cases, represent you in a Clinic Staff May Decline Assistance If:

mediation through the Southern District’s

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, ora NYLAG has already given advice to your opponent;

court-ordered settlement conference; e Your legal problem is beyond the scope of matters

Inappropriate cases, represent you at a handled by the clinic;

deposition; and e Providing assistance would conflict with the New York

Inappropriate cases, provide referrals to Rules of Professional Conduct;

other agencies and organizations that provide e Your income and/or assets are high enough to allow you

civil legal services and/or social services. to retain private counsel; or

e NYLAG determines, in its professional legal judgement,

that (i) you have refused to cooperate with the Clinic’s

counsel or follow the Clinic’s advice; (ii) any assistance

would be unreasonably difficult for NYLAG to carry out;

or (iii) your case is or will become frivolous,

unreasonable, groundless, or without merit.

¢ a bene

https://nylagoi.legalserver.org/modules/matter/extern_intake.php?pid=142&h=cea984& UJA ) □□□