Sykes v. White, et al
Filing
15
ORDER denying motion for appointment of counsel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 7/15/11. (Constantine, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
EUGENE SYKES,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED WHITE, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 3:11CV64(RNC)
RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Pending
before
the
court
is
the
plaintiff's
motion
for
appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915.
(Doc. #12.)
A plaintiff in a civil case is not entitled to appointment of
a free lawyer on request.
170 (2d Cir. 1989).
See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d
Because volunteer-lawyer time is in short
supply, a plaintiff seeking appointment of a free lawyer must
demonstrate that his or her complaint passes the test of "likely
merit."
Id. at 173.
This standard requires a plaintiff to show
that the claims in the complaint have a sufficient basis to justify
appointing a volunteer lawyer to pursue them.
See also Cooper v.
A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989)(discussing the
importance of requiring an indigent to "pass the test of likely
merit.")
No such showing has been made by the plaintiff here.
Nor is
it self-evident from a review of the complaint that appointment of
free counsel is warranted.
Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied
without prejudice to renewal. In the event the plaintiff wishes to
renew
her
memorandum
request,
any
such
showing
that
the
motion
claims
must
in
be
the
supported
complaint
by
a
have
a
sufficient basis in fact and in law to pass the test of likely
merit.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 15th day of July,
2011.
___________/s/________________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?