Opinion
24-cv-182 (ER)
01-25-2024
MOHAMMAD MONIRUL ISLAM CHOWDHURY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, NYC, and ANNA VAYSMAN, Defendants.
ORDER
EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff requested that the Court appoint pro bono counsel. Doc. 3.
The request is denied at this time. Courts do not have the power to obligate attorneys to represent pro se litigants in civil cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may, in its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list that is circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court's Pro Bono Panel. Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F.Supp.2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 'Hie standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases were set forth by the Court of Appeals in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). Collectively, these cases stand for the principle that the Court must “first determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and, if this threshold requirement is met, then the Court must consider additional factors including the pro se litigant's “ability to handle the case without assistance,” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392.
Hie Court is unable to conclude at this time that Plaintiff's claims are likely to have merit, although naturally that may change as the litigation progresses. Accordingly, the application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later stage in the progress of the case.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 3.
It is SO ORDERED.