Gulley v. Dzurenda et al
RULING denying without prejudice 44 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith on 2/25/10. (Ferguson, L.) Modified on 2/26/2010 to mark as an Opinion (Ferguson, L.).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CHAZ O. GULLEY - Plaintiff PRISONER CIVIL NO. 3:08-CV-492 (TPS)
JAMES DZURENDA ET AL. - Defendants RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL The plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Second Circuit has
clearly established that before the Court may even consider such an appointment, the indigent person must demonstrate that he is unable to obtain counsel. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61
(2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 996 (1991). The plaintiff asserts that he is incarcerated and has no source of income and no money in his prisoner account. The
plaintiff states that he was formerly represented by counsel, but counsel has since withdrawn. The plaintiff concedes that he has
made no attempts to find a new attorney. Since the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is unable to secure legal assistance or representation on his own, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel [doc. #44] is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewal of this motion shall be accompanied by a summary of the plaintiff's attempts to secure legal assistance or representation
and the reasons why assistance was unavailable.
The Clerk is
directed to send the plaintiff a copy of the Civil Pro Bono Panel Public List with a copy of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 25th day of February, 2010. /s/ Thomas P. Smith Thomas P. Smith United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?