Opinion
04 Civ. 8690 (KMW) (HBP).
July 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By motion dated February 3, 2006 (Docket Item 13) plaintiff, who is incarcerated, renews his motion moves for pro bono counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is again denied without prejudice to renewal.
In a civil case, such as this, the Court cannot actually "appoint" counsel for a litigant. Rather, in appropriate cases, the Court submits the case to a panel of volunteer attorneys. The members of the panel consider the case, and each decides whether he or she will volunteer to represent the plaintiff. If no panel member agrees to represent the plaintiff, there is nothing more the Court can do. See generally Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Thus, even in cases where the Court finds it is appropriate to request volunteer counsel, there is no guarantee that counsel will actually volunteer to represent plaintiff.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2006 (Docket Item 12), a copy of which is annexed hereto, I denied, without prejudice, a prior application by plaintiff for pro bono counsel. My February 3 Opinion and Order set forth the standards for being added to the pro bono counsel list and explained that plaintiff's motion was inadequate because (1) it did not address the merits of his case, and (2) based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, the merits of his case were questionable. Accordingly, I denied plaintiff's application forpro bono counsel without prejudice and instructed plaintiff that any renewed application should address the merits of his claim. The present application, which apparently crossed my February 3 Opinion and Order in the mail, suffers from the same defect and is totally silent concerning the merits of plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, it too should be denied.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal. Any renewed motion should be accompanied by an affidavit addressing the merits of plaintiff's claim.