Taylor v. Trigeno et al

Filing 296

ORDER: Plaintiff Roy Joaquin Taylor requests that the Court appoint a pro bono attorney, specifically "Keven Kreindler," in various cases brought by Plaintiff for the purposes of representing Plaintiff in settlement discussions. Dkt. No. 2 95. The request is denied.Unlike in a criminal case, Plaintiff is not entitled to a court-appointed attorney in a civil case. As the Court previously noted, a court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Dkt. No. 289 (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). At Plaintiff's request, the Court requested pro bono counsel for the purposes of settlement discussions in this case. Id. Attorney Kevin Mahoney, from the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, entered an appearance in this matter as a pro bono attorney for Plaintiff for the limited purposes of settlement discussions. Mr. Mahoney may voluntarily choose to represent Plaintiff in other matters, but the Court is not empowered t o force Mr. Mahoney to do soparticularly given that Plaintiff's request is to appoint Mr. Mahoney as counsel in cases not before this Court. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be take n in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order and the order at Dkt. No. 289 to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/18/2024) (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: 3/18/2024

1:16-cv-01143-GHW
ORDER

Plaintiff Roy Joaquin Taylor requests that the Court appoint a pro bono attorney, specifically
“Keven Kreindler,” in various cases brought by Plaintiff for the purposes of representing Plaintiff in
settlement discussions. Dkt. No. 295. The request is denied.
Unlike in a criminal case, Plaintiff is not entitled to a court-appointed attorney in a civil case.
As the Court previously noted, a court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
afford counsel.” Dkt. No. 289 (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). At Plaintiff’s
request, the Court requested pro bono counsel for the purposes of settlement discussions in this
case. Id. Attorney Kevin Mahoney, from the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, entered an
appearance in this matter as a pro bono attorney for Plaintiff for the limited purposes of settlement
discussions. Mr. Mahoney may voluntarily choose to represent Plaintiff in other matters, but the
Court is not empowered to force Mr. Mahoney to do so—particularly given that Plaintiff’s request is
to appoint Mr. Mahoney as counsel in cases not before this Court.
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 and the order at Dkt. No. 289 to
Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

2