Scott v. Cole et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 24 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 09/13/2016. A copy of this Order has been sent to pro se plaintiff. (JKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHAVELLE LAMARR SCOTT,
DECISION & ORDER
14-CV-6489

Plaintiff,

v.
SHERIFF DAVID V. COLE, et al.,
Defendants.

Preliminary Statement
Pro

se

plaintiff

ShaVelle

instant action under 42 U.S.C.
Keith Kastner-Smith,
civil

rights

denying
County

Jail.

Order re:
Court

care
See

10,

2014

while

Amended

Amended Complaint

are

("plaintiff")

brings

the

1983, alleging that defendants

§

Amy Bouck and Lorrie Gardner violated his

on July

medical

Scott

plaintiff's

two

February 5 and 12, 2016.

he

by assaulting
was

in

Complaint

custody at

to

#

(Docket

(Docket # 9).
motions

him and

then by

the
6) ;

Steuben
see

also

Pending before the

appoint

counsel,

dated

See Docket ## 22, 2.4.

Discussion
In

his

motion,

plaintiff

argues

that

appointed counsel because he is unable

the

law

library,

and

limited

Courtthe

he has limited access

knowledge

Motions for the Appointment of Counsel

needs

to afford counsel,

issues involved in the case are complex,
to

he

of

the

(Docket ## 22,

law.
24).

See
For

the reasons that follow,

plaintiff's motions are denied without

prejudice to renew.

Indigent
not

have

Hopkins,
court

a
14

has

indigent

civil

litigants,

constitutional
F.3d
the

787,

right

789

(2d

discretion

litigants

also,

Inc.,

In re Martin-Trigona,

28

See

counsel.

counsel

U.S.C.

do

Burgos

Nevertheless,

1994).

appoint

to

facts of the case warrant it.

to
Cir.

to

pursuant

W Sears Real Estate,

unlike criminal defendants,

§

to

v.
a

represent

1915(e)

when

the

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles

865 F.2d 22,

23

(2d Cir. 1988); see

737 F.2d 1254, 1260 (2d Cir. 1984).

The Second Circuit set forth the

factors

to be considered in

deciding whether or not to assign counsel

in Hodge v.

Police

Officers:
[T] he district judge should first determine whether
the indigent's position seems likely to be of
substance.
If the claim meets this threshold
requirement,
the court should then consider the
indigent's ability to investigate the crucial facts,
whether conflicting evidence implicating the need
for
cross-examination will be the major proof
presented to the fact finder, the indigent's ability
to present the case, the complexity of the legal
issues, and any special reason in the case why
appointment of counsel. would be more likely to lead
to a just determination.
802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986)
In

applying

the

plaintiff's allegations
of merit.

Hodge

factors,

satisfy the

the

initial

See, e.g., Mackey v. DiCaprio,

2

Court

finds

that

threshold showing

312 F. Supp. 2d 580,

582

(S.D.N.Y.

claims

that

punishment

2004) (finding that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
defendants

satisfied

subjected

threshold

him

showing

to

cruel

of

and

merit);

unusual
see

also

Allen v. Sakellardis, No. 02 CV 4373, 2003 WL 22232902, at *1-2
(S.D.N.Y.
that

Sept.

29,

correctional

2003) (finding that plaintiff's allegation
officers

assaulted

him

he

while

was

However,

restrained "appears to have some chance of success").

after reviewing the complaint and considering the nature of the
factual

and

legal

issues

ability

to

present

his

appointment

of

counsel

"Volunteer

lawyer

involved,
claims,

is

not

as

the

well
Court

warranted

at

as

plaintiff's

concludes
this

that

particular

time.
time

is

a

precious

commodity"

"should not be allocated arbitrarily."

Cooper v.

Co.,

Here,

877 F.2d 170,

172

(2d Cir.

1989).

A.

that

Sargenti

plaintiff's pro

se complaint is detailed in nature and adequately describes the
events

that

allegedly

led

to

his

injuries.

The

factual

circumstances surrounding plaintiff's claims do not appear to
be unusually complicated and the legal issues alleged are not
so complex as to make it
without counsel.

impossible for plaintiff to proceed

The case centers on an incident that occurred

on July 10, 2014 when plaintiff claims the defendants inflicted
excessive force by assaulting him in a

jail cell and hallway

causing him to pass out, and then denied him medical attention.
3

Plaintiff
race

and

alleges

that

defendants

See

religion.

Complaint

claim that plaintiff was
from

his

claim

cell

that

using

proper medical
(Docket

escort

not

Up

to

this

complaint,

#

and

generally,

They

that
Rule

plaintiff

has

and

Defendants

1) .

techniques.

point,

on his

disturbance and was moved

injured,

See

attention.

# 27)

well-drafted

was

him based

(Docket

creating a

proper

plaintiff

assaulted

he
26

has

drafted

further
received

Disclosure
submitted a
papers

motion

containing logical factual arguments in support of his requests
for

relief.

plaintiff

since

Notably,

has.

been

released

access to legal resources.

filing

from

the

instant

custody,

Moreover,

giving

motions,

him

better

plaintiff's case is still

in the discovery stage.
Accordingly,
sufficiently

at

this

knowledgeable

handle the litigation.
279

F.Supp.2d

counsel

where

complex

legal

[plaintiff]

juncture at least,

356,
"the

358

equipped

to

understand

See Castro v. Manhattan E.
(S.D.N.Y.

case

issues,

and

plaintiff appears

does
and

Suite Hotel,

2003) (denying appointment
not

present

there

is

novel

no

or

the Court finds no "special reason"

to pro bono counsel,

why appointment of counsel
just determination.

Boomer

2005

No.

03

CV

6348L,
4

that

Given the

now would be more likely to lead to a
Deperio,

of

overly

indication

lacks the ability to present his case")

limited resources available with respect

v.

and

WL

15451,

at

See
*l-2

(W.D.N.Y.

Jan.

3,

2005) (denying

despite plaintiff's claims that
limited knowledge of law);

6481,

2003

at

motion for appointment of
special

reason

likelihood

why

of

a

*2

Harris v.

(S.D.N.Y.

appoint

McGinnis,

May 14,

counsel

of

counsel

determination") .

No.

02 CV

2003) (denying

counsel where plaintiff

appointment
just

to

the matter was complex and he

had a

WL 21108370,

motion

would

"offered no
increase

Should

he

the

need,

plaintiff may consult with the Western District's pro se office
attorneys

for

questions

on

discovery

process

and

procedure.

Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel is denied.

Conclusion
Plaintiff's motions

for

appointment

of

counsel

(Docket

22, 24) are denied.

SO ORDERED.

Judge

Dated:

September 13, 2016
Rochester, New York

5

#