Sales v. TWU Local 100 Vice President Brain Clark et al

Filing 92

OPINION AND ORDER re: (14 in 1:15-cv-08689-PAC-SN, 90 in 1:14-cv-08091-PAC-SN) MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Lavien Sales. Accordingly, the Court denies Saless application without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the m otions at ECF No. 90 in 14 Civ. 08091 and ECF No. 14 in 15 Civ. 08689. The Court also reminds Sales that pursuant to its June 14, 2016 order, all remaining claims have been consolidated under the 2014 case. All future submissions should be filed only to the docket for 14 Civ. 08091. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 9/16/2016) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-cv-08091-PAC-SN, 1:15-cv-08689-PAC-SN Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X

9/16/2016

LAVIEN SALES,
Plaintiff,

14-CV-08091 (PAC)(SN)
OPINION AND ORDER

-againstTWU LOCAL 100 VICE PRESIDENT
BRIAN CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
LAVIEN SALES,
Plaintiff,

15-CV-08689 (PAC)(SN)

-againstNEW YORK CITY METRO TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY/MABSTOA,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:

By letter dated September 6, 2016, and filed to the docket on September 13, 2016, pro se
plaintiff Lavien Sales moves the Court to grant his request for pro bono counsel. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is denied without prejudice.
A federal judge has “broad discretion” when deciding whether to appoint counsel to an
indigent litigant. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). “There is no
requirement that an indigent litigant be appointed pro bono counsel in civil matters.” Burgos v.
Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 789 (2d Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

The factors to be considered in ruling on a motion for pro bono counsel are well settled
and include “the merits of plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel,
[plaintiff’s] efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to
gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877
F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Of these, “the factor which command[s] the most attention [is] the
merits.” Indeed:
Courts do not perform a useful service if they appoint a volunteer
lawyer to a case which a private lawyer would not take if it were
brought to his or her attention. Nor do courts perform a socially
justified function when they request the services of a volunteer
lawyer for a meritless case that no lawyer would take were the
plaintiff not indigent. Id.
Here, Sales filed this action, seemingly pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the New York State and New York City human rights laws,
N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 and N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-107, alleging discrimination on the basis of
race. The merits of Sales’s case are not so apparent as to warrant the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, the Court denies Sales’s application without prejudice. The Clerk of Court
is directed to terminate the motions at ECF No. 90 in 14 Civ. 08091 and ECF No. 14 in 15 Civ.
08689.
The Court also reminds Sales that pursuant to its June 14, 2016 order, all remaining
claims have been consolidated under the 2014 case. All future submissions should be filed only
to the docket for 14 Civ. 08091.
SO ORDERED
DATED:

New York, New York
September 16, 2016

cc:

Lavien Sales (by Chambers)
PO Box 1179
New York, NY 10027