Amos v. 1199 SEIU Home Care Industry Pension Fund et al

Filing 33

ORDER, The Court is aware that pltff has signed and submitted the form reflecting her consent to trial before a magistrate judge. However, consent to a magistrate judge for all purposes will not take effect unless all the parties consent and defts ha ve not here. The Court also liberally construes pltff's 2/9/10 letter as a motion for reconsideration of its 6/22/09 Order denying pltff's request for pro bono counsel. There is no right to counsel in a civil case. Therefore, the Court look s to a number of factors to determine whether it is appropriate to request a volunteer attorney for a particular case. The Court cannot compel an attorney to take a pro bono case. The Court must first consider whether the pltff's position is &qu ot;likely to be of substance." Pltff's complaint does not establish the threshold requirement that her claim is "likely to be of substance" at this juncture. Therefore, upon reconsideration, pltff's application for pro bono c ounsel is again denied without prejudice. In addition, the Court has reviewed the documents attached to pltff's 2/9/10 letter. The documents refer to an incident with a NYC bus driver. Pltff points out that the doctor who prepared the evaluation incorrectly refers to pltff as a man. Although the Court understands pltff's position, these documents do not relate to pltff's pending case in front of this Court. As defts' motion to dismiss this action is fully briefed, the Court w ill not consider any additional submissions. Furthermore, the Court makes every effort to decide motions as quickly as possible and pltff will be notified when a decision is made on the motion. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 2/18/2010) c/m (Galeano, Sonia)