Campbell v. Truw et al
Filing
129
OPINION AND ORDER re: 126 MOTION for Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP to Withdraw as Attorney (Unopposed). filed by Demond Campbell. IT IS ORDERED that Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP's motion to withdraw as attorneys for Plai ntiff, being unopposed, is GRANTED. (ECF No. 126.) Mr. Danner is hereby directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Court thereafter. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 126. The Pro Se Office is ORDERED to request an attorney to represent Plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); see Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial scheduled to begin on January 23, 2023, is adjourned to October 17, 2023. SO ORDERED. Attorney Scott Manning Danner and Victoria Roeck terminated. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/16/2022) (kv) Transmission to Office of Pro Se Litigation for processing.
Case 7:18-cv-05507-NSR-AEK Document 129 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
12/16/2022
DEMOND CAMPBELL
Plaintiff,
-against-
18-cv-5507 (NSR)
OPINION & ORDER
TRUW et al.,
Defendants.
NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District Judge
Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP have filed a motion to withdraw as attorneys for
Demond Campbell (“Plaintiff”). Additionally, Plaintiff has filed applications to (1) receive new
pro bono counsel, and (2) adjourn the date of the anticipated trial, which is currently scheduled
for January 23, 2022. For the following reasons, Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP’s motion
and Plaintiff’s requests are granted.
I.
Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys for Plaintiff
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4, Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP’s motion to withdraw
as attorneys for Plaintiff, being unopposed, is granted. (ECF No. 126.)
II.
Application for Pro Bono Counsel
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a letter requesting that the Court appoint him another
lawyer, following his dismissal of Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP. (ECF No. 125.) For the
following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s application, in so far as the Court can request that
an attorney volunteer represent Plaintiff.
Case 7:18-cv-05507-NSR-AEK Document 129 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 4
A. Legal Standard
The in forma pauperis statute provides that the district courts “may request an attorney to
represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Unlike in criminal cases,
in civil cases there is no requirement that the district courts supply indigent litigants with counsel.
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, the district courts have “broad
discretion” when deciding whether to grant an indigent litigant’s request for representation. Id.
Even if a court does believe that a litigant should have a lawyer, under the in forma pauperis
statute, a court has no authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may only “request” that an
attorney volunteer represent a litigant. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S.
296, 301–310 (1989). Moreover, courts do not have funds to pay counsel in civil matters; Courts
must therefore grant applications for counsel sparingly in order to preserve the “precious
commodity” of volunteer-lawyer time for those litigants whose causes are truly deserving. Cooper
v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172-73 (2d Cir. 1989).
In Hodge, the Second Circuit set forth the factors a court should consider in deciding
whether to grant a litigant’s request for counsel. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62. The litigant must first
demonstrate that she is indigent, such as by successfully applying for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1341 (2d Cir. 1994). The court must
then consider whether the litigant’s claim “seems likely to be of substance” – “a requirement that
must be taken seriously.” Id. at 60–61. If these threshold requirements are met, the court must next
consider such factors as:
the indigent’s ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence
implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the
fact finder, the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal
issues[,] and any special reason in that case why appointment of counsel would be
more likely to lead to a just determination.
2
Case 7:18-cv-05507-NSR-AEK Document 129 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 4
Id.; see also Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172 (listing factors courts should consider, including litigant’s
efforts to obtain counsel). In considering these factors, district courts should neither apply brightline rules nor automatically deny the request for counsel until the application has survived a
dispositive motion. See Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392-93 (2d Cir. 1997). Rather, each
application must be decided on its own facts. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61.
B. Discussion
Plaintiff qualifies as indigent, as he has successfully applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 1
Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim “seems likely to be of substance,” as it has survived a motion for
summary judgment. (ECF No. 82.) The Hodge threshold requirements, then, have been met.
An application of the remaining Hodge factors to the present case indicates that the Court
should grant Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel. Appointing counsel may greatly assist
Plaintiff—an inexperienced litigant—in preparing for, and participating in, the scheduled trial,
leading to a “quicker and more just result by sharpening the issues and shaping
examination.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60. Moreover, Plaintiff’s case will certainly involve factual
disputes and is likely to depend on conflicting evidence that requires cross-examination; as the
Court noted in Hodge, “it is more likely that the truth will be exposed where both sides are
represented by those trained in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination.” Id. See also
Simmons v. Artuz, No. 98 CIV. 777 (SAS), 1998 WL 85775, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (where
the plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel was granted on the basis that the anticipated trial was
expected to “involve factual disputes concerning Defendant’s conduct” and “the outcome of [the
plaintiff’s] case [was expected to] depend on conflicting evidence [requiring] cross-examination”);
Covington v. Kid, No. 94 CIV. 4234 SAS, 1998 WL 473950, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1998) (noting
On July 11, 2018 Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 13.)
1
3
Case 7:18-cv-05507-NSR-AEK Document 129 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 4
that it was appropriate to grant the plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel because his case
involved factual disputes and was likely to depend on conflicting evidence that required crossexamination).
As the Hodge factors indicate that it would be prudent for Plaintiff to receive counsel,
Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of new pro bono counsel is granted.
III.
Adjournment of Trial
The trial currently scheduled to begin on January 23, 2023, is adjourned to October 17,
2023, due to Plaintiff’s surgery that is expected to occur on January 19, 2023. (See ECF No. 125.)
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Holwell Shushter & Goldberg LLP’s motion to withdraw as
attorneys for Plaintiff, being unopposed, is GRANTED. (ECF No. 126.) Mr. Danner is hereby
directed to serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file proof of service with the Court thereafter.
The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 126.
The Pro Se Office is ORDERED to request an attorney to represent Plaintiff. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1); see Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial scheduled to begin on January 23, 2023, is
adjourned to October 17, 2023.
Dated:
December 16, 2022
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED:
________________________________
NELSON S. ROMÁN
United States District Judge
4
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?