Boyd v. Petralis et al
DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel 18 25 37 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; plaintiff's motion to compel and for sanctions 22 is denied. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 10/10/2017. Copy of this Decision & Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Nyjee L. Boyd on 10/11/2017 to his address of record. (KAH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NYJEE L. BOYD,
DECISION & ORDER
DEPUTY VINCENT PETRALIS, et al.,
On May 4, 2016, pro se plaintiff Nyjee L. Boyd (“plaintiff”) commenced this
action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants subjected
him to excessive force and failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Docket
# 1). Currently pending before this Court are three motions filed by plaintiff seeking
appointment of counsel. (Docket ## 18, 25, 37). Also pending is a motion to compel filed by
plaintiff. (Docket # 22).
Motion for Appointment of Counsel
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:
Whether the indigent’s claims seem likely to be of
Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts
concerning his claim;
Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for
cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the
Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and
Whether there are any special reasons why appointment of
counsel would be more likely to lead to a just
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 carefully the issue of appointment of counsel 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
time. As stated above, a plaintiff seeking the appointment of counsel must demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits. See id. Plaintiff has not done so at this stage. Moreover,
contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the legal issues in this case – use of force and failure to protect
– do not appear to be complex. Nor does plaintiff’s case present any special reasons justifying
the assignment of counsel. On this record, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel
(Docket ## 18, 25, 37) 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.
Motion to Compel
On May 1, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to respond to
document requests that he served on March 23, 2017. (Docket # 22). On May 23, 2017,
defendants responded to the outstanding requests, produced certain responsive documents, and
objected to the production of others. (Docket # 27). Two days later, defendants filed opposition
papers, noting that they had responded to the requests and opposing plaintiff’s motion on the
grounds that plaintiff did not confer with defendants’ counsel as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1). (Docket # 29). Defendants are correct that applicable rules require a party to confer
with the opposing party about discovery disputes before seeking an order from the court
compelling responses and to certify in any motion papers that such a conferral has occurred. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Plaintiff filed his motion in violation of these obligations. Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion to compel and for sanctions (Docket # 22) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
October 10, 2017
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?