McGriff v. Superintendent Keyser et al
Filing
79
ORDER granting 77 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Accordingly, plaintiffs renewed application for the Court to request pro bono counsel is GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to appear on plaintiffs b ehalf. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater attorney representation of pro se litigants, so pro bono counsel may apply to the Court for reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred in furtherance of plaintiff s case. See http://www.nysd.circ2.dcn/docs/prose/pro_bono_fund_order.pdf. However, plaintiff is again advised that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and that the Court relies on volunteers. Due to the 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. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison on 8/28/2020) (ks)
^
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
McGriff,
Plaintiff,
against
ORDER
17Civ.7307(NSR)(PED)
Keyser, et al.,
Defendants.
PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.:
Familiarity with the record of this proceeding is assumed.
By Memorandum and Order dated May 15,2018,Judge Roman denied without prejudice
plaintiff pro se 's request for appointment of pro bono counsel, [Dkt. 13,] At that time, Judge
Roman observed that the case was in its infancy, that defendants had not yet responded to the
pleadings, and that there was no basis to infer that plaintiff had a sufficient chance of success.
Subsequent to that Order, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs first amended
complaint. Judge Roman denied that motion, in part, in an Opinion and Order dated November
13, 2019. [Dkt. 57.] Notably, Judge Roman determined that plaintiff had stated Due Process
claims against defendants Kcyser and Polizzi, Judge Roman thereafEer referred this case to the
undersigned for prctrial supervision. [Dkt. 72.]
i 'hi •
Plaintiff has now submitted a renewed motion for appointment of counsel. [Dkt. 77.] In
his motion, plaintiff asserts that "the complex litigation and multiple avenues of necessary
investigation, combined with confusing constitutional points make this matter overwhelming"
for him. Plaintiff has attached to his motion documentation demonstrating his efforts to obtain
counsel without the Court's assistance.
On the basis of plaintiff s renewed motion, the Court is persuaded that pro bono legal
assistance, if available, is warranted at this time. Notably, plaintiffs Due Process claims have
survived a motion to dismiss, suggesting that these claims are "likely to be ofsubstance[.]"
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986)(outlining standards to appointment
of pro bono counsel),
Accordingly, plaintiffs renewed application for the Court to request pro bono counsel is
GRANTED. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to
appear on plaintiffs behalf. The Court has established a Pro Bono Fund to encourage greater
attorney representation of pro se litigants, so pro bono counsel may apply to the Court for
reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred in furtherance of plaintiff s case. See
http://www.nysd.circ2.dcn/docs/prose/pro_bono_fund_order.pdf. However, plaintiff is again
advised that there are no funds to retain counsel in civil cases and that the Court relies on
volunteers. Due to the 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.
Dated: August 28, 2020
White Plains, New York
—SdORDERE-B,
E.Davison,LLS.MJ
!The Court notes that the underlying determination that plaintiff was guilty of certain
prison disciplinary rules was partially annulled by the Appellate Division, Third Department,
pursuant to a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the N.Y.C.P.L.R. See Matter ofMcGriffv.
Venetozzi, 146 A.D.3d 1269 (3d Dept. 2017),
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?