UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NADINE JOACHIN, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10083 (LTS) DREAM JOB STAFFING; EAST HAVEN ORDER TO AMEND NURSING AND REHAB CENTER; CHRC LEGAL UNIT; AMSTERDAM NURSING HOME, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Nadine Joachin, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants violated her constitutional rights when they denied her application for employment because of her criminal history. By order dated November 20, 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 within 60 days of the date of this order. 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 make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court need not accept, however, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing 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 Plaintiff brings this action asserting that Defendants violated her constitutional rights, presumably when she applied for work and was denied employment because of her alleged criminal background. She names as Defendants (1) New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) Criminal History Record Check (“CHRC”) legal unit; (2) Amsterdam Nursing Home (“Amsterdam”); (3) East Haven Nursing & Rehab Center (“East Haven”); and (4) Dream Job Staffing (“Dream Job”). The following facts are drawn from the complaint. On January 14, 2023, in the Bronx, New York, I submitted documents to my EEOC Paul Esposito investigator regarding discrimination being promoted with these health care setting violating my 14th Amendment rights and 1st Amendment rights. They also violating my rights discriminating against [me] due to criminal background check.1
(ECF 1, at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that she suffered the following injuries: “I suffered bruises and individuals calling me the n-word multiple times & referred to me as an slave.” (Id. at 6.) She seeks $50,000,000 in monetary damages. DISCUSSION A. Claims Against DOH CHRC Legal Unit Plaintiff names as a defendant “CHRC legal unit,” which the Court understands to be DOH’s unit that processes criminal background checks for individuals who seek employment in a nursing facility. The Court construes these claims as asserting a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court first addresses the relevant statutory scheme for individuals seeking employment at nursing facilities. Under New York law, applicants for employment involving direct patient care in a nursing home are required to submit to criminal background checks, including fingerprinting. N.Y. Pub. Health Law §§ 2899, 2899–a; N.Y. Exec. Law § 845–b. The Criminal History Records Check Legal Review Unit (“CHRC Unit”) is the administration unit within the DOH tasked with fulfilling that statutory obligation. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2899–a(4). Walker v. Daines, No. 08-CV-4861 (JGLB), 2009 WL 2182387, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2009). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring claims against individuals employed at the CHRC legal unit
1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original, unless noted otherwise. concerning the decision regarding her eligibility to work at a nursing home, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days leave to amend this claim as follows.2 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 The Court construes Plaintiff’s due process claims under Section 1983 because she seeks relief from a state actor.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Private parties generally are not liable under the statute because “the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.” Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002). State officials can be sued in actions seeking injunctive relief where there is a “special relation” between the state official and the statute being challenged, and the officer has “some connection with the enforcement of the act.” Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908). The complaint suggests that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under Section 1983 against
one or more state officials at DOH under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. Due Process The Court understands Plaintiff’s allegations as a challenge to the application of New York’s statute requiring a background check following her employment application at Amsterdam, East Haven, and Dream Job. As noted above, the Court construes this part of
2 To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert claims against the CHRC legal unit itself, as opposed to the individuals working in that unit, seeking money damages, such claims are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Walker, 2009 WL 2182387, at *7 (“The DOH and its administrative subunit, the CHRC Unit, may assert Eleventh Amendment immunity since the DOH is an agency of the state, which is the real party in interest.”). Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Walker, 2009 WL 2182387, at *8 (discussing the plaintiff’s due process challenge regarding the denial of his employment application by the CHRC legal unit). “The two threshold questions in any [Section] 1983 claim for denial of procedural due process are whether the plaintiff possessed a liberty or property interest protected by the United
States Constitution or federal statutes, and, if so, what process was due before plaintiff could be deprived of that interest.” Green v. Bauvi, 46 F.3d 189, 194 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982)); see also Hynes v. Squillance, 143 F.3d 653, 658 (2d Cir. 1998) (To state a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must “demonstrate that he possessed a protected liberty or property interest, and that he was deprived of that interest without due process of law.”). The Court assumes for the purpose of this order that Plaintiff possessed a property interest in her employment.3 When the government deprives a plaintiff of some property interest pursuant to an established procedure, procedural due process is generally satisfied so long as some form of
hearing is provided before the individual is deprived of the property interest. Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147, 158 (2d Cir. 2011). “[I]f a plaintiff had an opportunity to contest a defendant’s actions but failed to do so, there can be no claim for violation of his or her procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Vialez v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 783 F. Supp. 109, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The complaint does not state facts to suggest that any state official denied Plaintiff procedural due process with regard to her application for employment because she does not allege that she took advantage of the state law remedies available to challenge any unfavorable
3 “In general, the nature and contours of a specific property interest are defined by some source independent of the Constitution – most often state law.” Ezekwo v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 940 F.2d 775, 782 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). decision. For example, Plaintiff does not plead any facts suggesting that she challenged any decision by DOH in state court by filing an Article 78 proceeding. See, e.g., Walker, 2009 WL 2182387, at *4 (describing a plaintiff’s due process challenge to employment eligibility where plaintiff filed an Article 78 proceeding before seeking relief in federal court). Because this state court remedy is available to Plaintiff, and there are no allegations that she took advantage of the
process or that the process is in any way inadequate, the complaint does not suggest that a state official violated her procedural due process rights. 3. Leave to Amend Procedural Due Process Claim The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her procedural due process claim. Should she choose to proceed with this claim, she must name the DOH state official(s) who were involved personally in her employment application, plead facts describing the steps she has taken to challenge any unfavorable DOH decisions, and allege any additional facts in support of her claim that the decision to deny her employment application violated her procedural due rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a state official, she can name him or her as a John or Jane Doe Defendant.
4. First Amendment Claim Plaintiff asserts in her complaint that her rights under the First Amendment were violated, but she does not state facts in support of this allegation. Should she want to proceed with a First Amendment claim against a state actor, she must allege facts describing the conduct on the part of a state actor that she considers a violation of her First Amendment rights. B. Claims Against Amsterdam, East Haven, and Dream Job Plaintiff asserts claims against two nursing facilities (Amsterdam and East Haven) and an employment agency (Dream Job), presumably related to DOH’s decision regarding her employment eligibility. To the extent Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants concern her employment, Plaintiff does not state facts suggesting that these Defendants violated any federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employers from discriminating “against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). To the extent she asserts claims of discrimination regarding her criminal history,
Title VII generally does not prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of a prior criminal conviction.4 See e.g., Booker v. City of New York, 2017 WL 151625, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2017) (collecting cases). To the extent Plaintiff is asserting a race discrimination claim, based on her allegation individuals used racist language toward her, she does not provide any details regarding this conduct or attribute the racist language to an individual employed by Amsterdam, East Haven, or Dream Job, and her complaint, in its current form, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to state facts in support of any claim of race discrimination she may be asserting by describing what occurred,
when and where the discrimination took place, who participated in the discrimination, and any other facts that suggest Defendants considered Plaintiff’s race when denying her employment. 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.
4 If an employment practice – such as relying on an applicant’s criminal history – has a disparate impact on an employee who is protected under Title VII, that employee may assert a disparate impact claim. See Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 975 F.3d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding that plaintiffs did not state a disparate impact claim). The complaint does not suggest that Plaintiff can assert a disparate impact claim under Title VII because Amsterdam, East Haven, and Dream Job presumably denied Plaintiff employed based on a decision by DOH. 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)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege
additional facts to state a procedural due process claim, a First Amendment claim, and/or a Title VII claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint to detail these 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 her 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 amended complaint must be repeated in the second 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-10048 (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 she 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. A copy of NYLAG’s flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2024 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
Write the full name of each plaintiff. CV. (Include case number if one has been assigned) “against: Do you want a jury trial? Ll1Yes LINo
Write the full name of each defendant. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section I.
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT
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.
Rev. 3/24/17
I. 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. (Proper defendants under employment discrimination statutes are usually employers, labor organizations, or employment agencies.) Attach additional pages if needed. Defendant 1: Name
Address where defendant may be served
Defendant 2: Name
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: Name
County, City State Zip Code II. PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT The address at which I was employed or sought employment by the defendant(s) is:
Name Address County, City State Zip Code Il. CAUSE OF ACTION A. Federal Claims This employment discrimination lawsuit is brought under (check only the options below that apply in your case): L] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, for employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin The defendant discriminated against me because of my (check only those that apply and explain): L] race: CL] color: L] religion: Ll sex: L] national origin:
Page 3
L] 42U.S.C. § 1981, for intentional employment discrimination on the basis of race My race is: [] Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634, for employment discrimination on the basis of age (40 or older) I was born in the year: L] Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796, for employment discrimination on the basis of a disability by an employer that constitutes a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance My disability or perceived disability is: [] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, for employment discrimination on the basis of a disability My disability or perceived disability is: L] Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654, for employment discrimination on the basis of leave for qualified medical or family reasons B. Other Claims In addition to my federal claims listed above, I assert claims under: L] New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, for employment discrimination on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, marital status L] New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131, for employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation, alienage, citizenship status L] Other (may include other relevant federal, state, city, or county law):
Page 4
IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM A. Adverse Employment Action The defendant or defendants in this case took the following adverse employment actions against me (check only those that apply): L] didnot hire me [] terminated my employment L] did not promote me L] did not accommodate my disability L] provided me with terms and conditions of employment different from those of similar employees L] retaliated against me □□ harassed me or created a hostile work environment L] other (specify):
B. Facts State here the facts that support your claim. Attach additional pages if needed. You should explain what actions defendants took (or failed to take) because of your protected characteristic, such as your race, disability, age, or religion. Include times and locations, if possible. State whether defendants are continuing to commit these acts against you.
As additional support for your claim, you may attach any charge of discrimination that you filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights, the New York City Commission on Human Rights, or any other government agency.
Page 5
V. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES For most claims under the federal employment discrimination statutes, before filing a lawsuit, you must first file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and receive a Notice of Right to Sue. Did you file a charge of discrimination against the defendant(s) with the EEOC or any other government agency? L] Yes (Please attach a copy of the charge to this complaint.) When did you file your charge? [1] No Have you received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC? L] Yes (Please attach a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue.) What is the date on the Notice? When did you receive the Notice? [1] No VI. RELIEF The relief I want the court to order is (check only those that apply): L] direct the defendant to hire me L] direct the defendant to re-employ me L] direct the defendant to promote me L] direct the defendant to reasonably accommodate my religion L] direct the defendant to reasonably accommodate my disability L] direct the defendant to (specify) (if you believe you are entitled to money damages, explain that here)
Page 6
VII. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION 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
Telephone Number Email Address (if available)
Ihave read the attached Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically: LlYes LINo 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.
Page 7
ARTES Disrp, Sy EB 5 XO Wee 4\ United States District Court $\ □□□ cS '2/ Southern District of New York OND LS ict of
Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically Parties who are not represented by an attorney and are not currently incarcerated may choose to receive documents in their cases electronically (by e-mail) instead of by regular mail. Receiving documents by regular mail is still an option, but if you would rather receive them only electronically, you must do the following: 1. Sign up for a PACER login and password by contacting PACER! at www.pacer.uscourts.gov or 1-800-676-6856; 2. Complete and sign this form. If you consent to receive documents electronically, you will receive a Notice of Electronic Filing by e-mail each time a document is filed in your case. After receiving the notice, you are permitted one “free look” at the document by clicking on the hyperlinked document number in the e-mail.* Once you click the hyperlink and access the document, you may not be able to access the document for free again. After 15 days, the hyperlink will no longer provide free access. Any time that the hyperlink is accessed after the first “free look” or the 15 days, you will be asked for a PACER login and may be charged to view the document. For this reason, you should print or save the document during the “free look” to avoid future charges. IMPORTANT NOTICE Under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Civil Rule 5.2, and the Court’s Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, documents may be served by electronic means. If you register for electronic service: 1. You will no longer receive documents in the mail; 2. Ifyou do not view and download your documents during your “free look” and within 15 days of when the court sends the e-mail notice, you will be charged for looking at the documents; 3. This service does not allow you to electronically file your documents; 4. It will be your duty to regularly review the docket sheet of the case.
1 Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) (www.pacer.uscourts.gov) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator over the internet. 2 You must review the Court's actual order, decree, or judgment and not rely on the description in the email notice alone. See ECF Rule 4.3 3 The docket sheet is the official record of all filings in a case. You can view the docket sheet, including images of electronically filed documents, using PACER or you can use one of the public access computers available in the Clerk’s Office at the Court. 500 PEARL STREET | NEW YORK, NY 10007 300 QUARROPAS STREET | WHITE PLAINS, NY 10601
CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE I hereby consent to receive electronic service of notices and documents in my case(s) listed below. I affirm that: 1. I have regular access to my e-mail account and to the internet and will check regularly for Notices of Electronic Filing; 2. I have established a PACER account; 3. I understand that electronic service is service under Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.2 of the Local Civil Rules, and that I will no longer receive paper copies of case filings, including motions, decisions, orders, and other documents; 4. I will promptly notify the Court if there is any change in my personal data, such as name, address, or e-mail address, or if I wish to cancel this consent to electronic service; 5. I understand that I must regularly review the docket sheet of my case so that I do not miss a filing; and 6. I understand that this consent applies only to the cases listed below and that if I file additional cases in which I would like to receive electronic service of notices of documents, I must file consent forms for those cases. Civil case(s) filed in the Southern District of New York: Note: This consent will apply to all cases that you have filed in this court, so please list all of your pending and terminated cases. For each case, include the case name and docket number (for example, John Doe v. New City, 10-CV-01234).
Name (Last, First, MI)
Address City State Zip Code
Telephone Number E-mail Address
Date Signature
Return completed form to: Pro Se Intake Unit (Room 200) 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 SS le Pew Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services New York MEE Legal Assistance Group to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys.
Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Civil Litigants in District Court for the Southern District Of New □□□□
NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York is a fre: clinic staffed by attorneys, law students and paralegals to assist those who are themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in the outhern District of New York. The clinic does not provide full representation. The clinic, is not part of or run by the court, assists litigants with federal civil cases including involving civil rights, employment discrimination, labor law, social security benefit: and tax.
Contact the Clinic: (212) 659-6190 or complete our online intake form (found here: A staff member will contact you within a few days.
looking for assistance can also contact the clinic at the kiosk located across the hall the pro se clinic office in the courthouse.
this time, the clinic offers remote consultations only. Requests for in- appointments will be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. and Hours: Marshall United States Courthouse
Room LL22 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 (212) 659 6190 Open weekdays 10 a.m. — 4 p.m. Closed on federal and court holidays
nade."
= = eee 14 SEE ° . New York MES 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 case different federal court, such as the Eastern District of should be filed in □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ New York, which covers of New York, which covers New York or somewhereclsd Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Nassau and e 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 e 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; e Provide forms and instructions manuals; ¢ Write court documents for you, or Inappropriate cases, help you retain probono Conduct an investigation into the facts of your case. counsel; e 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 e Inappropriate cases, represent you at a handled by the clinic; deposition; and e Providing assistance would conflict with the New York e 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 ben https://nylagoi.legalserver.org/modules/matter/extern_intake.php?pid=|42&h=cea984& □□ □ □□□□