Opinion
06 Civ. 7200 (JGK).
August 26, 2008
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. The motion is denied without prejudice. For the Court to request counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that her claim seems likely to be of substance. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Davidson v. Mann, 129 F.3d 700, 702 (2d Cir. 1997). The plaintiff has not shown that her complaint is likely to be of substance. Therefore, the application for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 22) is denied without prejudice.
The plaintiff has also filed a motion for extension of time. However, it is unclear what time limit the plaintiff seeks to extend. The case is currently assigned to Magistrate Judge Pitman for all pre-trial purposes. If there are any deadlines that the plaintiff seeks to extend she should make the application directly to the Magistrate Judge indicating what the deadline is and what extension she seeks and why. The application for an extension of time (Docket No. 23) is therefore denied without prejudice.