Hamilton v. Erhardt et al

Filing 26

DECISION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 1/10/13. (KAP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
KARVIA A. HAMILTON, 04A5214,
Plaintiff
-vs-

DECISION AND ORDER
10-CV-6234 CJS

M. ERHARDT, et al,
Defendants
__________________________________________
Karvia Hamilton (“ Plaintiff” ) is a prisoner in the custody of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“ DOCCS” ). Plaintiff maintains
that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights by forcing him to shave his
beard, in violation of his Rastafarian religious beliefs. Defendants counter that Plaintiff
failed to obtain a “ beard permit” in accordance w ith DOCCS’ regulations. The Court
denied in part Defendant’ s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’ s claims, and a trial is scheduled
to begin on April 8, 2012.

Now before t he Court is Plaintiff’ s application for

appointment of counsel. The application is denied.
Plaintiff maintains that appointment of counsel is w arranted for the follow ing
reasons: 1) he doesn’ t “ know certain law s governing Federal District Court[s]” ; 2) he
w as under the assumption that the Court w ould appoint him counsel once his claims
survived the motion to dismiss; 3) he had “ difficult[y] articulating [his] damages”
during a recent video conference w ith the Court; 4) it “ [s]ometimes . . . can be difficult
to get inside the facility law library” ; 5) he doesn’ t understand “ most of the legal
terms” that w ere used during the aforement ioned conference” ; and 6) he doesn’ t
understand the Court’ s Pre-trial Order.

1

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. How ever,
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants.
See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22,
23 (2d Cir. 1988). Assignment of counsel in this matter is clearly w ithin the judge' s
discretion. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be
considered in deciding w hether or not to assign counsel include the follow ing:
1. Whether the indigent’ s claims seem likely to be of substance;
2. Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts concerning his
claim;
3. Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination w ill
be the major proof presented to the fact finder;
4. Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and
5. Whether there are any special reasons w hy appointment of counsel w ould
be more likely to lead to a just determination.
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police
Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986).
Having considered all of the foregoing factors, the Court finds that appointment
of counsel is not w arranted in this case. Plaintiff’ s claim may have some merit, since
it is unclear w hether he complied w ith DOCCS’ regulations concerning religious
exemptions for beards. How ever, the case is relatively simple and straightforw ard,
and Plaintiff has already demonstrated that he is able to present his claims and counter
Defendants’ arguments. Moreover, the reasons that Plaintiff has offered in support of
his application are not persuasive. For example, the Court has used the same Pre-trial
Order for years in numerous pro se prisoner cases, and it cannot recall any other
instance in w hich an inmate claimed that the Order w as difficult to understand.

2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’ s application for appointment of counsel is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Rochester, New York
January 10, 2013
ENTER:
/s/ Charles J. Siragusa
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA
United States District Judge

3