Williams v. New York City Dept. of Correction et al

Filing 64

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO COUNSEL: The Office of Pro Se Litigation 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 t o 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 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 without an attorney. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy o f this order to the Pro Se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED....that the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent the plaintiff at a settlement conference to be conducted before the undersigned. If pro bono cou nsel is located, such counsel shall represent the plaintiff solely for purposes of the settlement conference, and that representation will terminate at the conclusion of the settlement process. If the Clerk of Court is unable to locate pro bono counsel, the plaintiff shall appear without counsel at the settlement conference....that any objection by the plaintiff to the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent the plaintiff at a settlement conference must be filed within 14 days of this Order. In the event the plaintiff files such an objection, this request for pro bono counsel is vacated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 12/12/2019) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 12/12/2019 Tyreik Williams, Plaintiff, -againstNew York City Dept. of Correction et al., 18-cv-05175-VSB-KHP SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO COUNSEL Defendants. KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Court directs that the Clerk of Court seek pro bono counsel to enter a limited appearance for the purpose of conducting certain depositions in the above-captioned action. Counsel may also engage in settlement discussions. Counsel will file a Notice of Limited Appearance as Pro Bono Counsel. Four depositions are needed – those of non-party witnesses Huffman, Ramos, Kaufman, and King. These depositions should be completed by the end of March 2020. 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. Pro bono counsel shall not be obligated to represent Plaintiff in matters beyond the scope of those described in this order. 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. CONCLUSION The Office of Pro Se Litigation 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 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 without an attorney. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail a copy of this order to the Pro Se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 12, 2019 New York, New York ________________________________ KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate 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?