Lynch et al v. DeMarco et al
Filing
286
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Accordingly, the Court's Pro Se Office is directed to seek the appointment of pro bono counsel for Plaint iffs forthwith. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiffs. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/22/11. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------X
RICKY LYNCH, JERRY FINCH, JR.,
DAMIEN R. SMALL, LEROY C. JONES,
THEODORE DAVIS, MACK BUTLER, EDDIE M.
SIMS, DALLAS JOHNSON, FELIPE ROVELO,
ROBERT BERNHARD, ADAM WILLIAMS,
DONALD BANGS, EDWARD KEYES, JASON COOPER,
KEVIN M. MASSEY, DARRYL ISSAC, CALVIN
FELDER, ANDREW ZEIGLER, CHESTER INGRAM,
DONNELL STENGLE, KEVIN KING, HOWARD DAVIS,
THOMAS HARPER, DARYL MILLER, DEWAYNE
BUTLER, KEITH KING, and RAY KELLY,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
11-CV-2602(JS)(ARL)
Plaintiffs,
-againstVINCENT F. DEMARCO, individually and
in his official capacity as Sheriff
of County, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE,
individually and in their official
capacity as Superintendent of Suffolk
County,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs:
Mack Butler, 217709, Pro Se
Jason Cooper, 410349, Pro Se
Calvin Felder, 883549, Pro Se
Andrew Zeigler, 145163, Pro Se
Kevin King, 436156, Pro Se
Howard Davis, 459277, Pro Se
Daryl Miller, 364127, Pro Se
Keith King,436122, Pro Se
Ray Kelly, 420394, Pro Se
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
100 Center Drive
Riverhead, NY 11901
Ricky Lynch, 11A4769, Pro Se
Leroy C. Jones, 11A4675, Pro Se
Dallas Johnson, 11A4679, Pro Se
DOWNSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Box F
Red Schoolhouse Road
Fishkill, NY 12524-2445
Jerry Finch, Jr., 11A3785, Pro Se
CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
P.O. Box 2001
Dannemora, NY 12929
Damien R. Small, 11-A-2159, Pro Se
SING SING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
354 Hunter Street
Ossining, NY 10562
Theodore Davis, Pro Se
22 Bogart Street
Huntington Station, NY 11746
Eddie M. Sims, Pro Se
4 Ronek Drive
Amityville, NY 11701
Felipe Rovelo, 11R1687, Pro Se
GROVELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
P.O. Box 50
Sonyea, NY 14556
Robert Bernhard, Pro Se
104 Highview Dr.
Selden, NY 11784
Donald Bangs, 11R2402, Pro Se
CAPE VINCENT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Rte. 12E
P.O. Box 739
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
Edward Keyes, 11R2324, Pro Se
Chester Ingram, 11R2266, Pro Se
MOHAWK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
6100 School Road
P.O. Box 8451
Rome, NY 13442
Kevin M. Massey, 403942, Pro Se
COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ANNEX
253 S.E. Corrections Way
Lake City, FL 32025
Darryl Issac, Pro Se
P.O. Box 386
Central Islip, NY 11722
2
Donnell Stengle, 10R0502, Pro Se
WILLARD DRUG TREATMENT CAMPUS
7116 County Road 132
P.O. Box 303
Willard, NY 14588
Adam Williams, 348203, Pro Se
KIRKLAND RECEPTION & EVALUATION CENTER
F1-129B
4344 Broad River Road
Columbia, SC 29210
Thomas Harper, Pro Se
6 Linton Ct.
West Babylon, NY 11704
Dewayne Butler, 110093/039315, Pro Se
NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER
100 Carman Avenue
East Meadow, NY 11554
For Defendants:
Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney
P.O. Box 6100
H. Lee Dennison Building - Fifth Floor
Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Presently
pending
before
the
Court
is
the
pro
se
Complaint brought by the above-named present and former inmates at
the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (“SCCF”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”)
pursuant
to
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
(“Section
1983”)
complaining about the conditions at the SCCF. The Court finds that
the appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may
request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” Courts possess broad discretion when determining whether
3
appointment is appropriate, “subject to the requirement that it be
‘guided by sound legal principle.’”
Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co.,
Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 171-72 (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Jenkins v.
Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1983)) (per curiam). The
Second Circuit set forth the guiding legal principle as follows:
First, the district court must ‘determine
whether the indigent's position seems likely
to be of substance.’ If this threshold
requirement is met: “the court should then
consider the indigent's ability to investigate
the
crucial
facts,
whether
conflicting
evidence
implicating
the
need
for
cross-examination will be the major proof
presented to the fact finder, the indigent's
ability to present the case, the complexity of
the legal issues and any special reason . . .
why appointment of counsel would be more
likely to lead to a just determination.
Rivas v. Suffolk County, Nos. 04-4813, 04-5198, 2008 WL 45406, at
* 1 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2008) (quoting Hodge v. Police Officers, 802
F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986)).
The Second Circuit has explained
that these factors are not restrictive and that “[e]ach case must
be decided on its own facts.”
Hodge, 802 F.2d at
61.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Amended
Complaint and the attachments to the Complaints and finds that the
appointment of counsel is warranted. The threshold factor of Hodge
has been met and upon consideration of the need for assistance in
the orderly progression of the case, the balance of factors weigh
in favor of appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, the Court’s pro
se office is directed to seek the appointment of pro bono counsel
for Plaintiffs forthwith.
4
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this
Order to the Plaintiffs. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in
good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of any appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
November 22 , 2011
Central Islip New York
5
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?