Seymore v. Department of Corr. Services et al
Filing
90
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff has made another application to appoint counsel. This motion is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated factors that sh ould guide the Courts discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Moscicki, No. 99Civ. 2427, 2000 WL 511642, at *4 (S.D .N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. Only then can the Cou rt consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: plaintiffs ability to obtain representation independently, and [her] ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). As in his previous motions, the plaintiff has not made any showing that his claim is likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore deniedwithout prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/15/2013) (djc) Modified on 11/15/2013 (djc).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
MAURICE SEYMORE,
11 Civ. 2254 (JGK)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
- against DEPARTMENT OF CORR SERVICES, ET AL.,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff has made another application to appoint
counsel.
This motion is denied without prejudice for failure to
make the required showing.
The Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit has articulated factors that should guide the Court’s
discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil
See Hodge v. Police Officers,
litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Moscicki, No. 99
Civ. 2427, 2000 WL 511642, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000).
For
the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff
must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the claim has
substance or a likelihood of success on the merits.
802 F.2d at 60-61.
See Hodge,
Only then can the Court consider the other
factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should
be appointed: “plaintiff’s ability to obtain representation
independently, and [her] ability to handle the case without
1
assistance in the light of the required factual investigation,
the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly
conducted cross-examination to test veracity.”
Cooper v. A.
Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).
As in his
previous motions, the plaintiff has not made any showing that
his claim is likely to succeed on the merits.
The plaintiff’s
application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied
without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at
this time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
November 15, 2013
___________/s/_______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
2
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?