Leftridge v. Connecticut Department of Labor et al

Filing 20

CORRECTED RULING denying without prejudice 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 1/30/13.(Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE, JR.

:
:
:
:
v.
: CIV. NO. 3:12CV1654 (WWE)
:
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
:
LABOR, ET AL
:
:
:
CORRECTED RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL1
Plaintiff Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr., brings this civil
rights complaint, pro se and in forma pauperis, alleging
employment discrimination on the basis of gender, race and
retaliation “for filing a federal law suit before the Honorable
Judge Janet Hall, 3:10CV592 (JCH).” [Compl. ¶7].

Mr. Leftridge

seeks appointment of pro bono counsel in this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1915.

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s

motion is DENIED
The Second Circuit repeatedly has cautioned the district
courts against the routine appointment of counsel.

See, e.g.,

Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Cooper
v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F. 2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).

The

Second Circuit has made clear that before an appointment is even
This ruling is corrected only to remove “Education in Stamford
Public School” from the title of the ruling. This defendant was
named in error.
1

1

considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that she is
unable to obtain counsel.

Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d

58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 996 (1991).
Plaintiff states that he has made no effort to obtain
counsel because he lacks the financial resources.
Further, when deciding whether to appoint counsel, the
district court must "determine whether the indigent’s position
seems likely to be of substance."

Id.

In Cooper v. Sargenti,

the Second Circuit cautioned the district courts against the
"routine appointment of counsel" and reiterated the importance
of requiring an indigent to "pass the test of likely merit."
877 F.2d at 173-74.

The court explained that, "even where the

claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the
indigent’s chances of success are extremely slim."

Id. at 171.

Here, the record consists of a complaint and a copy of a Right
to Sue letter from the EEOC. At this time, the court cannot
determine whether plaintiff’s claims possess likely merit.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel
[Doc. #3] is DENIED without prejudice to refilling at a later
date.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 30TH day of January 2013.
_____/s/_____________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2