Brooks v. Mullen et al
DECISION AND ORDER denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel. SO ORDERED. A copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 11/22/2017. (AFM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case # 14-CV-6690-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER
GREGORY MULLEN et al.,
On November 13, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Marland Brooks moved to appoint counsel. ECF
No. 25. 1 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).
Here, it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be of substance because this case
is in the early stages of litigation. Defendants just answered Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 31,
2017, and no discovery has occurred. A scheduling conference is set for December 13, 2017 before
Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF
No. 25) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2017
Rochester, New York
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Plaintiff also moved to appoint counsel on December 15, 2016 (ECF No. 13) and the Court denied that motion
(ECF No. 14).
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?