Goodson v. Isch et al
DECISION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED.. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 1/9/18. A copy of this NEF and Decision and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. (JO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MITCHELL S. GOODSON,
Case # 16-CV-371-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER
RACHEL ISCH, et al.,
On January 4, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Mitchell S. Goodson moved to appoint counsel. ECF No. 26. There
is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases, although the Court may appoint counsel to assist
indigent litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles Sears Real Estate,
Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988). The Court must carefully consider whether to appoint counsel, because
“every assignment of a volunteer lawyer deprives society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause.”
Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). The Court must consider several factors, including
whether the indigent’s claims seem likely to be of substance and any special reason why appointment of counsel
would be more likely to lead to a just determination. See Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir.
1997); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986).
Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be of substance because this case is in the early
stages of litigation. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer recently issued a scheduling order in this case and all
discovery deadlines are set for later this year. There are also no special reasons to justify appointment of counsel
at this time.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 26) is DENIED WITHOUT
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2018
Rochester, New York
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Court
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?