Opinion
10 Civ. 2568 (WHP).
April 27, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner Christopher Romero ("Romero"), now acting in a pro se capacity, brings this action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of his right to a speedy trial, and errors in his sentencing. On March 31, 2010, Romero submitted an application requesting the appointment of counsel.
In determining whether to grant a request for counsel, this Court must consider "the merits of plaintiff's case, the plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti, Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).
As a threshold matter, a plaintiff must demonstrate that her claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). In addition, in reviewing a request for counsel, the Court must be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity, and thus should not grant appointment of counsel indiscriminately. Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172.
Petitioner has not yet demonstrated that his claim has substance or a high likelihood of success. Therefore, Petitioner's application is denied without prejudice to its renewal at such time as the existence of potentially meritorious claims may be demonstrated.
This Court reminds Petitioner that the pro se office is a valuable resource in assisting litigants who proceed in federal court without the assistance of counsel. Petitioner is strongly encouraged to contact the pro se office for information:
Pro Se Clerk's Office
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
(212) 805-0175
SO ORDERED: