Vasquez v. Rockland County

Filing 88

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL: Therefore, because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel at this time, Plaintiff's application must be DENIED without prejudice to renew it at a later stage in the proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied.1 Denial of Plaintiff's request is without prejudice to Plaintiff's renewed application later in the ca se. 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). Counsel for Defendants is instructed to serve a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the application (Doc. 87). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 8/5/2020) (ks)

Case 7:16-cv-00895-PMH Document 88 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
KIM VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
-againstSHAMEED YADALI, et al.,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
PRO BONO COUNSEL
16-CV-00895 (PMH)

Defendants.
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of pro se Plaintiff’s Application for Relief and Pro Bono Counsel
(Doc. 87). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s application for pro bono counsel is denied without
prejudice to renew at a later date.
Unlike in criminal proceedings, in civil cases, the Court does not have the power to obligate
attorneys to represent indigent pro se litigants. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 301–310 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(l), the Court may, at its
discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant by
placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court's pro bono panel.
See Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Second Circuit
set forth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases in Hendricks v.
Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390,392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir.
1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). These cases direct the
district courts to “first determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance,"
Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and then, if this threshold is met, to consider the complexity of the legal
issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity.” Cooper, 877 F.2d
at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392 (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62). “Even where the

Case 7:16-cv-00895-PMH Document 88 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 3

claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the indigent’s chances of success are
extremely slim,” and the Court should determine whether the pro se litigant’s “position seems
likely to be of substance,” or shows “some chance of success.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61.
In his application, Plaintiff explains that he seeks assistance in locating witnesses, general
discovery, preparing for trial, and settlement negotiations. However, this action is still in its early
stages; Defendants have filed their answer and discovery has not yet begun. At this stage in the
proceedings, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s position seems likely to be of
substance or whether there are particularly complex issues requiring the appointment of pro bono
counsel. The Court is unable also to determine whether Plaintiff is unable to handle this case
without assistance, although this conclusion may change as the action continues. Therefore,
because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono
counsel at this time, Plaintiff’s application must be DENIED without prejudice to renew it at a
later stage in the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel is
denied. 1 Denial of Plaintiff's request is without prejudice to Plaintiff's renewed application later in
the case. 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).

1

The Records Management Department will provide Plaintiff with an estimate as to the
cost for receiving copies from the Court.

2

Case 7:16-cv-00895-PMH Document 88 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 3

Counsel for Defendants is instructed to serve a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. The Clerk is
instructed to terminate the application (Doc. 87).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
August 5, 2020

Philip M. Halpern
United States District Judge

3