Gordon v HCR

Filing 15

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 09/13/2017. A copy of this Order has been mailed to pro se plaintiff at her address of record. (JKT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NAULA GORDON,
DECISION

Plaintiff,

&

ORDER

16-CV-6671

v.

HCR HOME CARE,
Defendant.

Preliminary Statement

Pro

se

plaintiff

Naula

Gordon

("plaintiff")

brings

the

instant action alleging unlawful employment discrimination based
on her religion,

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
1).

§§

2000e et seq.

See Complaint (Docket#

Pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to appoint

counsel, dated October 11, 2016.

See Docket# 3.

Discussion

In

her

motion,

plaintiff

argues

that

she

needs

Court-

appointed counsel because she is "a low income individual who is
on maternity leave."

Plaintiff states that she does not "have

the funds to pay for a lawyer."
that follow,

Docket # 3.

For the reasons

plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to

renew.

Indigent civil litigants, unlike criminal defendants, do not
have a constitutional right to counsel.

See Burgos v. Hopkins,

Nevertheless, a court has the

14 F.3d 787, 789 (2d Cir. 1994).
discretion to appoint

counsel to represent indigent litigants

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) when the facts of the case warrant
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W Sears Real Estate, Inc.,

it.

865 F.2d 22, 23

(2d Cir. 1988); see also, In re Martin-Trigona,

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:
[Tl 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).
Plaintiff's case is at the earliest stages of litigation,
but the Court will assume that plaintiff has satisfied an initial
threshold showing of merit.

However, assuming plaintiff has a

valid

discrimination,

claim

for

employment

I

conclude

that

appointment of counsel is not warranted at this particular time
based on the nature of the issues involved and plaintiff's ability
thus far to present her claims.
"Volunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity" that "should
Cooper v. A.

not be allocated arbitrarily."
2

Sargenti Co., 877

F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).

In this case, plaintiff's claims

do not present any novel or complex legal or factual issues that
would require the immediate assistance of counsel.

See,

e.g.,

Guess v. University of Rochester, No. 11-CV-6473, 2014 WL 4724889
(W. D. N. Y. Sept. 8, 2014)

(plaintiff's employment discrimination

case did not involve novel or complex legal issues); White v.
Eastman Kodak Co.,

No.

06-CV-6493CJS,

(W.D.N.Y. June 20, 2007)

2007 WL 1827508,

at

*1

(case where plaintiff alleged employment

discrimination did not involve complex issues);

Colon-Reyes v.

Fegs Health and Human Servs. Sys., No. 12 Civ. 2223(CM), 2012 WL
2353732, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012)
discrimination

claims

were

"not

so

appointment of counsel was merited).

(plaintiff's employment.
complex

or

unique

that

Here, plaintiff's prose

complaint is straightforward and well drafted in describing the
detailed events that gave rise to the alleged violation:
Complaint (Docket# 1).

Plaintiff successfully applied for and

was granted in forma pauperis status by the Court.
5,

6.

See

On September 13,

2017,

the

Court

scheduling conference with the parties,

held

See Docket##
an

in-person

at which plaintiff was

articulate, asked thoughtful and related questions, and evinced
an understanding of the litigation processes as explained by the
Court.

See Docket# 13.

Lastly, plaintiff provides no specific

reasons why she is unable to litigate the case on her own.

3

Thus,

I

find that plaintiff's request to be appointed pro

bono counsel is not warranted at this time.

Plaintiff may consult

with the Western District's prose office attorneys for questions
on discovery process and procedure.

Plaintiff's motion to appoint

counsel is denied without prejudice to renew.

Conclusion

For

the

reasons

stated

above,

appointment of counsel (Docket# 3)

plaintiff's

motion

is denied without prejudice

to renew.
SO ORDERED.

Magistrate Judge

Dated:

September /1_, 2017
Rochester, New York

4

for