Taylor v. Trigeno et al

Filing 289

ORDER REQUESTING PRO BONO COUNSEL: For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for the limited purposes described above. The Court advises Plaintiff that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Pl aintiff directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be prepared to proceed with the case, including settlement negotiations, without an attorney. The Court certifies under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 2/15/2024) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ROY JOAQUIN TAYLOR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 2/15/2024

1:16-cv-01143-GHW
ORDER REQUESTING
PRO BONO COUNSEL

Plaintiff Roy Joaquin Taylor asserts Section 1983 claims of malicious prosecution, excessive
force, and other claims against The City of New York and other Defendants arising out of a traffic
stop and arrest in December 2015 and a separate incident in January 2016 while he was held at
Riker’s Island. Dkt. No. 210. Defendants moved for summary judgment on June 6, 2022 for
Plaintiff ’s claims arising out of the January 2016 incident, which the Court denied. Dkt. No. 282.
Defendants moved to dismiss the claims arising out of the December 2015 incident, which is fully
briefed and currently pending before this Court. Dkt. No. 265. Absent the parties’ resolution of
this case, the Court anticipates proceeding to trial at least on the claims arising out of the January
2016 incident. Plaintiff now requests the appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of
discussing settlement with Defendants. Dkt. No. 287.
The courts “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff does not proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and may not qualify for
counsel under § 1915(e)(1). 1 However, Courts in this District routinely appoint pro bono counsel

While Plaintiff did not pursue this case in forma pauperis, his resources were not large at the time that he filed
this case. See Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
1

for the limited purposes of representing a pro se litigant in settlement or mediation discussions, 2
which is the only scope of representation that Plaintiff seeks. Because reaching a resolution in this
matter with the assistance of counsel would benefit the parties and the Court, the Court will request
that the Clerk of Court attempt to locate pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of representing
Plaintiff in settlement negotiations with Defendants in this matter. Counsel shall file a Notice of
Limited Appearance as Pro Bono Counsel.
Under the Court’s Standing Order regarding the Creation and Administration of the Pro
Bono Fund (16-MC-0078), pro bono counsel may apply to the Court for reimbursement of certain
out-of-pocket expenses spent in furtherance of Plaintiff ’s case. The Pro Bono Fund is especially
intended for attorneys for whom pro bono service is a financial hardship. See
http://www.nysd.circ2.dcn/docs/prose/pro_bono_fund_order.pdf.
Pro bono counsel will not be obligated for any aspect of Plaintiff ’s representation beyond
the matters described in this order. In particular, pro bono counsel will not be required to respond
to a dispositive motion or represent Plaintiff in the preparation of pretrial submissions and
conducting trial. Absent an expansion of the scope of pro bono counsel’s representation, pro bono
counsel’s representation of Plaintiff will end upon completion of any settlement negotiations that
occur among the parties. Upon the filing by pro bono counsel of a Notice of Completion, the
representation by pro bono counsel of Plaintiff in this matter will terminate, and pro bono counsel
will have no further obligations or responsibilities to Plaintiff or to the Court in this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono
counsel to represent Plaintiff for the limited purposes described above. The Court advises Plaintiff
that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and the Court relies on volunteers. Due to a
scarcity of volunteer attorneys, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to
2

See Mediation in Pro Se Employment Discrimination Cases, https://nysd.uscourts.gov/mediation/prose.

2

represent Plaintiff. If an attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact Plaintiff directly. There is no
guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, and plaintiff should be
prepared to proceed with the case, including settlement negotiations, without an attorney.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not
be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 15, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

3