Coriddi v. University of Rochester; Strong Memorial Hospital et al
Filing
13
DECISION & ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with this lawsuit pro se. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 3/5/2014. (KAH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TAMMY CORIDDI,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiff,
13-CV-6482L
v.
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER; STRONG
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
Tammy Coriddi (“plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants University of
Rochester, Strong Memorial Hospital and Lisa Wideman (“defendants”), asserting claims
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law, arising out of her
employment with defendants. (Docket # 1). On November 21, 2013, the Court granted Christina
Agola’s request to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. (Docket # 8). Currently before this Court is
plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. (Docket # 12).
It is well-settled that 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 and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22,
23 (2d Cir. 1988), such assignment of counsel is clearly within the judge’s discretion. In re
Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be considered in deciding whether
or not to assign counsel include the following:
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 will 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 why appointment of
counsel would 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).
The court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because
“every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a volunteer
lawyer available for a deserving cause.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d
Cir. 1989). Therefore, the court must first look to the “likelihood of merit” of the underlying
dispute, Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d at 392; Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d at
174, and “even though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be
appointed in a case where the merits of the . . . claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are
therefore poor.” Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001)
(denying counsel on appeal where petitioner’s appeal was not frivolous but nevertheless appeared
to have little merit).
The Court has reviewed the facts presented herein in light of the factors required
by law and finds, pursuant to the standards promulgated by Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392, and
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d at 58, that the appointment of counsel is not necessary at this
2
time. As stated above, a plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel must demonstrate a likelihood
of success on the merits. See id. This, plaintiff has failed to do. Moreover, the legal issues in
this case do not appear to be complex, nor does it appear that conflicting evidence will implicate
the need for extensive cross-examination at trial. Finally, plaintiff’s case does not present any
special reasons justifying the assignment of counsel. On this record, plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel (Docket # 12) is DENIED without prejudice at this time. It is the
plaintiff’s responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with this lawsuit pro se. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
March 5 , 2014
3
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?