Propst v. Maha et al

Filing 15

DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 1/4/2019. A copy of the NEF and order have been sent to the pro se Plaintiff. (MFM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBERT J. PROPST,
Plaintiff,
Case # 17-CV-1004-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
SHERIFF GARY MAHA, et al.,
Defendants.

On November 13, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Robert J. Propst moved to appoint counsel. ECF No. 12.
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 movant’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).
Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be of substance because this case is in
the early stages of litigation. The Court has only recently issued an order allowing some of Plaintiff’s
claims to proceed to service, ECF No. 13, and neither of the remaining defendants has answered.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 12) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2019
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court