Mohawk v. William Floyd School District

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and Plaintiff's request (in his Complaint) for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew when this case is trial ready. The Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/20/2013. (C/M Plaintiff) (Nohs, Bonnie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
HAROLD MOHAWK,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-2518(JS)(GRB)

-againstWILLIAM FLOYD SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Harold Mohawk, pro se
11 Robert Street
Mastic, New York 11950
For Defendant:

No appearance

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Before the Court are the applications of the pro se
plaintiff Harold Mohawk (“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis
and for the appointment of pro bono counsel.

For the reasons that

follow, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and
the application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is denied
without prejudice and with leave to renew when this case is trial
ready.
DISCUSSION
I.

In Forma Pauperis Application
On

April

22,

2013,

Plaintiff

filed

an

employment

discrimination Complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title
VII”), against his former employer, William Floyd School District
(“Defendant”), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma

pauperis. Upon review of the Plaintiff’s declaration in support of
his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action
without prepayment of the filing fee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward copies

of the Summons, Plaintiff’s Complaint, and this Order to the United
States Marshal Service for service upon the Defendant forthwith.
II.

Request for the Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel
Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint pro bono

counsel to represent him in this case.

For the reasons set forth

below, the application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is
denied with leave to renew when the case is ready for trial, if
warranted at that time. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), courts
may appoint an attorney to represent someone unable to afford
counsel.

Courts possess broad discretion when determining whether

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)).

The Second

Circuit set forth the principle as follows:
[T]he district judge should first determine
whether the indigent’s position seems likely
to be of substance. If the claim meets this
threshold requirement, the court should then
consider the indigent's ability to investigate
the
crucial
facts,
whether
conflicting
2

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 in
that case why appointment of counsel would be
more likely to lead to a just determination.
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986).

The

Second Circuit also held that these factors are not restrictive and
that “[e]ach case must be decided on its own facts.”

Id. at 61.

The Court has reviewed the Complaint and finds that the
appointment of pro bono counsel is not warranted at this stage of
the litigation.

The Court is unable to conclude, at this juncture

in the litigation and after considering the above referenced Hodge
factors in the context of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, that the
appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for appointment of
counsel is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew when
this case is ready for trial if circumstances warrant such an
application at that time.
CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

application to proceed in

set

forth

forma

above,

pauperis

the

Plaintiff’s

is GRANTED and his

application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED with
leave to renew when this case is ready for trial if so warranted at
that time.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
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:

May
20 , 2013
Central Islip, New York

4