Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Murray v. Orange County Prosecutors Office, 18-cv-442 (NSR). (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York Number: infdco20181030642 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER NELSON S. ROMAN , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff's request, dated October 19, 2018, for appointment of pro bono counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), the Court may at its discretion order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court's pro bono panel. Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F.Supp.2d 335 , 344 (S.D.N.
More

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff's request, dated October 19, 2018, for appointment of pro bono counsel. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may at its discretion order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court's pro bono panel. Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F.Supp.2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

The Second Circuit has set forth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). These cases direct the district courts to "first determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance," Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and then, if this threshold is met, to consider "secondary criteria," including the pro se litigant's "ability to obtain representation independently, and his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity." Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392 (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62). "Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the indigent's chances of success are extremely slim," and the Court should determine whether the pro se litigant's "position seems likely to be of substance," or shows "some chance of success." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61.

The Court has considered the substance and complexity of this case and Plaintiff's ability to present the case as well as the other factors and does not find any exceptional circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel at this time.

Therefore, because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel at this time, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 35 and to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff at his address as listed on ECF.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer