Watson v. Moscicki et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying 73 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 1/4/2010. (JMB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLES WATSON, Plaintiff, ORDER 08-CV-960A v. SUPERINTENDENT RONALD MOSCICKI Superintendent, Lakeview Correctional Facility, Defendant. Pl ai n t i f f has applied t o t h e Court f o r appoint m en t of counsel pursuant t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e). There is no const i t u t i o n al right t o appoint ed c o u n s el in civil cases. How ev er , under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 9 1 5 (e), t h e Court m ay ap p o i n t counsel t o assist indigent lit i g an t s . See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v . Charles W . Sears Real Est at e, Inc., 8 6 5 F.2 d 2 2 , 2 3 (2 d Cir. 1 9 8 8 ). A s s i g n m en t of counsel in t h i s m at t er is clearly w i t h i n t h e judge' s d i s c r et i o n . In re M ar t i n -T r i g o n a, 7 3 7 F.2 d 1 2 5 4 (2 d Cir. 1 9 8 6 ). The f ac t o r s t o be considered in deciding w h et h er or not t o assign counsel include t h e f o llo w in g : 1 . W h et h er t h e indigent ' s claim s seem likely t o be o f subst an c e; 2 . W h et h er t h e indigent is able t o invest i g at e t h e crucial f ac t s c o n c er n i n g his claim ; 3 . W h et h er conf l i c t i n g evidence im p l i c at i n g t h e need f o r crossex am i n at i o n w i l l be t h e m aj o r proof present ed t o t h e f ac t f i n d er ; 4 . W h et h er t h e legal issues involved are com p l ex ; and 5 . W h et h er t h er e are any special reasons w h y appoint m en t of c o u n s el w o u l d be m o r e likely t o lead t o a just det er m i n at i o n . H en d r i c k s v. Coughlin, 1 1 4 F.3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 2 (2 d Cir. 1 9 9 7 ); see also Hodge v. Po l i c e Of f i c er s , 8 0 2 F.2 d 5 8 (2 d Cir. 1 9 8 6 ). The Court m u s t consider t h e i s s u e of appoint m en t caref u l l y , of course, because " ev er y assignm en t of a v o l u n t eer law y er t o an undeserving client deprives societ y of a volunt eer l aw y er available f o r a deserving cause." Cooper v. A . Sargent i Co., 8 7 7 F. 2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 2 (2 d Cir. 1 9 8 9 ). T h e Court has review ed t h e f ac t s present ed herein in light of t h e f ac t o r s required by law . Plaint i f f appears t o be an int el l i g en t and capable pro s e lit i g an t w h o so f ar has done an adm i r ab l e job of lit i g at i n g his case. A c c o r d i n g l y , based on t h i s review , plaint i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r appoint m en t of c o u n s el is denied w i t h o u t prejudice at t h i s t i m e. It is t h e plaint i f f ' s r es p o n s i b i l i t y t o ret ai n an at t o r n ey or press f o r w ar d w i t h t h i s law s u i t pro se. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 6 5 4 . In order t o assist plaint i f f in pursuing t h i s case pro se, t h e Clerk of t h e Court is direct ed t o send plaint i f f copies of t h e Court ' s b o o k l et ent i t l ed Pro Se Lit i g at i o n Guidelines and t h e M an u al f o r Inm at e Li t i g an t s . SO ORDERED. s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: January 4, 2010

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?