Walters v. The City of New York

Filing 7

ORDER OF SERVICE: The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is also directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New Y ork City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that Defendant City of New York waive service of summons. The Court denies Plaintiff's application for the Court to request pro bono counsel (ECF 4) without prejudice to renewal at a la ter time. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith , and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Waiver of Service due by 5/26/2021. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/26/2021) (js) Transmission to Pro Se Assistants for processing.

Download PDF
USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/26/2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHERON WALTERS, Plaintiff, -against- 1:21-cv-2880-GHW ORDER OF SERVICE THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detained in the George R. Vierno Center (GRVC) on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant failed to protect him from contracting COVID-19. By order dated April 23, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). 1 DISCUSSION A. Request to waive service of summons The Clerk of Court is directed to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that the City of New York waive service of summons. B. Application for pro bono counsel The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the 1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early in the proceedings for the Court to assess the merits of the action, Plaintiff’s motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package. The Clerk of Court is also directed to electronically notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department of this order. The Court requests that Defendant City of New York waive service of summons. The Court denies Plaintiff’s application for the Court to request pro bono counsel (ECF 4) without prejudice to renewal at a later time. 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 26, 2021 New York, New York GREGORY H. WOODS 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?