Opinion
00 Civ. 4981 (LAK)
October 25, 2000
ORDER
Plaintiff, who brings this action pro se, moves for the appointment of counsel.
"There is no requirement that an indigent litigant be appointed pro bono counsel in civil matters, unlike most criminal cases." Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 789 (2d Cir. 1994). The district court, however, has discretion to make such an appointment, subject to the availability of counsel willing to undertake the assignment, after consideration of factors including the nature of the factual issues the claim presents, the plaintiff's apparent ability to present the case, and the apparent merits of the claim. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). The threshold requirement is that the claim appear to have merit. Burgos, 14 F.3d at 789; Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co, 877 F.2d 170, 172-73 (1989); Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61; see also Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 1997).
Here, there are not sufficient indications in the complaint to suggest that plaintiff has a substantial chance of prevailing on the merits. Indeed, if plaintiff had substantial evidence to support her claim, the availability of court-awarded attorneys' fees to counsel for successful Title VII plaintiffs should make it possible for her to find retained counsel on a contingent fee basis. Hence, although she no doubt would benefit from the services of an attorney, she has not made a sufficient showing at this point to warrant the assignment of pro bono counsel given the other demands on the limited numbers of lawyers willing to take cases like this on that basis.
Taking all relevant factors into account, the application is denied without prejudice to renewal prior to trial, assuming the case proceeds to that point.
SO ORDERED.