Opinion
00 Civ. 04360 (LAK)
July 24, 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).
Plaintiff claims he was assaulted by one of the correction officer defendants. This therefore is an extremely simple case and well within plaintiff's ability to present as a factual matter. Nor is there any basis at this early stage to conclude that the case appears to have merit. Absent some unexpected development, it appears likely that plaintiff will contend that there was an unprovoked assault and that two correction officers will contend either that there was no incident or that any force that was used was reasonable in the circumstances. In any case, plaintiff appears not yet to have exhausted his administrative remedies.
Taking all of these factors into account, the application is denied.
SO ORDERED.