Opinion
21-CV-10185 (PMH)
05-02-2022
ORDER
PHILIP M. HALPERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This Court, on March 30, 2022, issued an Order dismissing this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and denying Plaintiff's request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (Doc. 14). Days after that Order was entered, on April 8, 2022, the Court received Plaintiff's “second” request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (Doc. 15). The Court denied that application by endorsement entered on April 12, 2022. (Doc. 16). That endorsement read, in pertinent part, as follows:
This matter was dismissed-and the request for pro bono counsel denied as moot-by Order dated March 30, 2022. To the extent Plaintiff seeks the appointment of pro bono counsel to pursue an appeal, the request is denied without prejudice to renew because that application must be made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.(Id.). One week later, on April 19, 2022, the Court received another request for the appointment of pro bono counsel. (Doc. 18). Approximately one week after that, on April 26, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a fourth request for the appointment of pro bono counsel-albeit that application was addressed to Magistrate Judge Krause as opposed to this Court. (Doc. 19).
The April 19, 2022 and April 26, 2022 applications for the appointment of pro bono are denied for the same reasons provided in the April 12, 2022 endorsement. (See Doc. 16). Should Plaintiff seek to have counsel appointed to assist in his appeal, the application must be made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Even if the Court considered these successive applications on their merits, the requests for pro bono counsel would be denied. The factors evaluated on an indigent litigant's request for counsel include the merits of the case, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these considerations, the merits is “command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. The Court has already dismissed this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 18 and mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED