Peters v. Huttel et al

Filing 152

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL:...Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's renewed application for the Court to request pro bono counsel. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address l isted on ECF and to show service on the docket.... 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 couns el 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 Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 9/9/2022) (ate)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
9/9/2022

TYRONE PETERS,
Plaintiff,
-againstCORRECTION OFFICER HUTTEL et al.,

No. 15-cv-9274 (NSR)
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
PRO BONO COUNSEL

Defendants.
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Tyrone Peters (“Plaintiff”) brings this action, pro se, against Correction Officer
(“CO”) Daniel Huttel, CO Jeffrey Erns, and Sergeant Duane Malark (collectively, “Defendants”),
alleging claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 38, 45.) On December 5, 2019, this Court
granted Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 92.) As a result, the sole
remaining cause of action in this lawsuit is related to a claim of excessive force against CO Huttel,
CO Erns, and Sergeant Malark.
During the parties’ status conference, held on January 24, 2020, Plaintiff expressed interest
in the Court appointing pro bono counsel. As Plaintiff has a claim that has survived summary
judgment this Court concludes Plaintiff’s claims are “likely to be of substance.” Hodge v. Police
Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, on February 21, 2020, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 94.) A jury trial was set for October 4, 2021,
but the action was discontinued after the parties advised the court of their settlement. (ECF No.
122.) However, Plaintiff withdrew from the parties’ negotiated settlement (ECF No. 123), and the
Court subsequently denied Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement because it was
never memorialized in writing. (ECF No. 145.)
During the parties’ pretrial conference, held on September 9, 2022, Plaintiff expressed

interest in continuing this action, which is set for a five-to-six-day jury trial starting on May 15,
2023. The Court set a final pretrial conference for December 8, 2022. The Court indicated that it
would renew its order granting Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel.
The appointment of counsel in this matter would “lead to a quicker and more just result by
sharpening the issues and shaping examination.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff’s renewed application for the Court to request pro bono counsel.
The Court again 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 and the ongoing COVID19 pandemic, a lengthy period of time may pass before counsel volunteers to represent Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, this litigation will progress at a normal pace. 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 pro se. Of course, if an
attorney offers to take the case, it is entirely Plaintiff’s decision whether to retain that attorney or
not. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of
pro se litigants. The 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.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address
listed on ECF and to show service on the docket.

Dated:

September 9, 2022
White Plains, New York

SO ORDERED:
________________________________
NELSON S. ROMÁN
United States District Judge

2