Oliva v. Brookwood Coram I, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM & ORDER re: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; re: 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO RENEW when the case is trial ready, of so warranted at that time. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward copies of the Summonses, Complaint, and this Order to the U.S. Marshal Service for service upon the Defendants without prepayment of fees. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/15/2014. (C/M Plaintiff) (Nohs, Bonnie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-againstBROOKWOOD CORAM I, LLC, BROOKWOOD
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, STEVEN AUERBACK1,
CEO, Owner, and NANCY AUERBACH,
a/k/a NANCY AUERBACH-KARWICK,
Vincent Oliva, pro se
1408A Nottingham Place
Coram, NY 11727
SEYBERT, District Judge:
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to, inter
alia, the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.
(“FHA”), and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. EXEC. LAW 290
et seq., against Brookwood Coram I, LLC, Brookwood Management
Company, Steven Auerbach, Nancy Auerbach a/k/a Nancy AuerbachKarwick (collectively, “Defendants”), accompanied by an application
to proceed in forma pauperis and an application for the appointment
of pro bono counsel to represent him in this case.
Plaintiff spells this individual’s surname as
in the caption of the Complaint, Plaintiff spells it
in the body of the Complaint. For consistency, the
use the latter spelling.
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.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a);
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons that follow, the
application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO RENEW when this case is trial
ready, if so warranted at that time.
Unlike criminal defendants, civil litigants do not have
a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an
attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.”
deciding a motion for appointment of counsel, “the district judge
should first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely
to be of substance.”
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d
A position is likely to be of substance if it appears
to the court that the plaintiff “appears to have some chance of
success . . . .”
Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61.
Where a plaintiff
satisfies this threshold requirement, the Second Circuit instructs
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 in that case why appointment of counsel
would be more likely to lead to a just
Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62.
These factors are not restrictive and
“[e]ach case must be decided on its own facts.”
Id. at 61.
Notwithstanding the requirement that pleadings drafted by
a pro se litigant, are to be construed liberally and interpreted to
raise the strongest arguments they suggest, see Burgos v. Hopkins,
14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court, upon careful review of
the facts presented herein and in light of the factors required by
law as discussed above, finds that the appointment of counsel is
not warranted at this time.
Even assuming that Hodge’s threshold
requirement is satisfied, the record reflects that the legal issues
presented are not unduly complex and that Plaintiff can adequately
prosecute his claim pro se.
Based on this review, Plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO RENEW when the action is ready for
trial, if warranted at that time. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility
to retain an attorney or press forward with this lawsuit pro se.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and his motion for the
appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO RENEW when
this case is ready for trial, if warranted at that time.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in
forma pauperis status is DENIED for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge
v. United States, 269 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward copies of
the Summonses, Complaint, and this Order to the United States
Marshal Service for service upon the Defendants without prepayment
Additionally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail
a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
15 , 2014
Central Islip, New York
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?