Brown v. Correction Officer et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Plaintiff's Letter Requests, in that his request for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and his request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff's response is now due by 11/30/2018. Defendants may file a reply within 15 days after Plaintiff's response is filed. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 10/22/2018. A copy of the order will be sent to the pro se Plaintiff. (MFM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HOMER BROWN,
Plaintiff,
Case # 17-CV-74-FPG
v.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
LETTER REQUESTS
CORRECTION OFFICER, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Homer Brown has submitted a letter in which he (1) requests appointment of
counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and (2) seeks an unspecified extension of time to respond
to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 19.
As to Plaintiff’s request for counsel, 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. See
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58
(2d Cir. 1986).
At this stage of the litigation, the Court declines to appoint counsel, because it is presently
unclear whether Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be of substance. Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on August 14, 2018, ECF No. 14, and Plaintiff has yet to respond. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
request for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
1

Regarding the request for an extension of time, the Court notes that this is Plaintiff’s second
request to extend the time to respond to the motion to dismiss. The Court previously granted
Plaintiff a thirty-day extension. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff does not seek a particular period of
extension.
Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s response is now due
by November 30, 2018. Defendants may file a reply within 15 days after Plaintiff’s response is
filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

2