Cavico v. Steuben County Jail
Filing
75
DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel 70 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. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 1/5/2023. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Joseph J. Cavico, Jr.
Case 6:18-cv-06329-EAW-MWP Document 75 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
JOSEPH J. CAVICO, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION & ORDER
18-CV-6329EAW
MURIEL BROWN, Nurse Practitioner, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
On April 30, 2018, pro se plaintiff Joseph J. Cavico, Jr. (“plaintiff”) commenced
this action against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a claim for deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. (Docket ## 1, 8, 18). Currently pending before this Court is
plaintiff’s sixth motion seeking appointment of counsel. (Docket # 70).
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;
Case 6:18-cv-06329-EAW-MWP Document 75 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 3
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 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, the
legal issues in this case do not appear to be complex.
Plaintiff maintains that appointment of counsel is warranted in this case because
he wishes to depose the defendants and is not sure how to conduct depositions without an
2
Case 6:18-cv-06329-EAW-MWP Document 75 Filed 01/05/23 Page 3 of 3
attorney. (Docket # 70). The deadline for conducting fact discovery in this matter expired on
December 2, 2021, approximately three months before plaintiff filed the pending motion.
(Docket # 49). Despite being advised to request an extension of deadlines contained in the
scheduling order if he believed he needed more time (Docket # 59), and despite requesting and
being granted extensions of the deadlines to amend the pleadings (Docket ## 57, 68) and for
expert discovery (Docket ## 66, 67), plaintiff never requested an extension of the deadline for
fact discovery.
On this record, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (Docket # 70) 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
January 5, 2023
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?