DECISION and ORDER
ANDREW T. BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the court is plaintiff's motion to "Employ Dental Expert." (Dkt. No. 123). The motion papers also contain a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for the Assignment of Counsel." (Dkt. No. 123 at CM/ECF pp.5-9). This court will consider plaintiff's motions together.
I. Expert Witness
In this civil rights amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was denied constitutionally adequate dental care. (Dkt. No. 92).1 In his motion requesting the appointment of a dental expert, plaintiff argues that he will "suffer prejudice in presenting his claims fully without the services of an expert dental witness to assist [him] with the technical medical and dental aspects of [his] claims. . . ." (Dkt. No. 123 at 2).2 Plaintiff has already consulted a proposed expert witness, who has told plaintiff that he is "all booked up" at this time, but plaintiff hopes to contact this individual "once [he has] a more substantive timeline [sic] for a trial of this matter." (Dkt. No. 123 at 3). Plaintiff has attached a note from the proposed expert which states that "[a]t present all my available time is completely booked up. Sorry I will not be able to take on your case at the present time." (Dkt. No. 123 at 4). Appointment of this expert would clearly be inappropriate at this time because the expert has already declined to take plaintiff's case. It is also unclear when the expert would be available, or whether the individual would take plaintiff's case if he were available.
With respect to an expert witnesses in general, the court notes that in plaintiff's filing order, the court specifically stated that "[a]lthough his IFP Application has been granted, plaintiff will still be required to pay fees that he may incur in this action, including copying and/or witness fees." (Dkt. No. 7 at 19 n.8). Thus, even though a pro se plaintiff has been granted IFP, he or she would still be responsible for witness expenses, including expert witness fees. Plaintiff would be free to hire and pay an expert witness in that instance.
Notwithstanding the above statement, if pro bono counsel is appointed in a case, the Northern District of New York maintains a Pro Bono Fund which provides, upon application by the attorney, reimbursement to the attorney for certain expenses, which could include the cost of necessary expert witnesses. Local Rules NDNY 83(g). Such funds are available only through pro bono counsel, and may not be expended if an attorney is not appointed to the case. The court will now turn to plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel.
II. Appointment of Counsel
A. Legal Standards
There is no right to appointment of counsel in civil matters. Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 789 (2d Cir. 1994). Section 1915 provides that a court may request an attorney to represent anyone who is "unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Appointment of counsel must be done carefully in order to preserve the "precious commodity" of volunteer lawyers for those litigants who truly need a lawyer's assistance. Cooper v. A. Sargenti, Inc., 877 F.2d at 172-73.
In Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, the Second Circuit listed the factors that a court must consider in making the determination of whether to appoint counsel. As a threshold matter, the court should ascertain whether the indigent's claims seem likely to be of substance. Terminate Control Corp., 28 F.3d at 1341 (citing Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986)). If so, the court should then consider:
[T]he indigent's ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent's ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.
Id. This is not to say that all, or indeed any, of these factors are controlling in a particular case. Rather, each case must be decided on its own facts. Velasquez v. O'Keefe, 899 F.Supp. 972, 974 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (McAvoy, C.J.) (citing Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61).
The court would also point out that generally, prior to engaging in the above analysis, plaintiff is required to show that he has been unsuccessful in attempting to find counsel on his own through the private sector or public interest firms. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61). While such a showing has not been made in this case, the court will consider the substance of plaintiff's motion
B. Application
The court will assume for the purposes of this motion, that the case has substance. Plaintiff has been able thus far to proceed quite well on his own. He has been articulate and very determined in connection with various pretrial proceedings in his case. He has participated in discovery conferences with the court and has succeeded in obtaining discovery on his own. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 122) (Court granted plaintiff's motion to compel in part). He has been partially successful in numerous efforts to amend his complaint. (See, e.g., 9/6/2017 Decision and Order, Dkt. No. 91) (motion to file a fourth amended complaint granted in part). In his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law in which he makes arguments based specifically on the Hodge factors. Thus, he is clearly familiar with case law.
The court does understand that, if the case should proceed to trial, plaintiff could be at a disadvantage presenting evidence and cross-examining witnesses. Thus, if the case survives dispositive motions, and proceeds closer to a trial, the court will consider the appointment of counsel for purposes of trial preparation and trial. Based on a review of the record and the proceedings in this case, this court finds that appointment of counsel at this time would not be appropriate because discovery is now closed,3 and the dispositive motion deadline has been set for May 11, 2018 (Dkt. No. 122).4 If, and when, this case proceeds closer to trial, the court will likely hold a conference at which appointment of counsel and other matters regarding trial will be discussed. In addition, if counsel is appointed, then the attorney can assist plaintiff in deciding whether to seek to re-open discovery and seek the services of an expert, to the extent necessary and appropriate.
WHEREFORE, based on the findings above, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motions for the appointment of an expert witness and for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 123) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL AT A LATER TIME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE.
