From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castro v. Sobkowiak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 2, 2015
12-CV-1242A(Sr) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2015)

Opinion

12-CV-1242A(Sr)

06-02-2015

JUAN CASTRO, 11-B-2930, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SOBKOWIAK, et al., Defendants.


DECISION AND ORDER

This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Dkt. #19.

Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. #17. In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that he requires the assistance of a lawyer due to a language barrier and because of his lack of understanding in how to proceed with this case. Dkt. #46.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988). Assignment of counsel in this matter is clearly within the judge's discretion. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to assign counsel include the following:

1. Whether the indigent's claims seem likely to be of substance;



2. Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts concerning his claim;



3. Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder;



4. Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and



5. Whether there are any special reasons why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986).

The Court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because "volunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co. Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Therefore, the Court must not allocate pro bono resources "arbitrarily, or on the basis of the aggressiveness and tenacity of the claimant," but should instead distribute this resource "with reference to public benefit." Id. Moreover, the Court must consider to the "likelihood of merit" of the underlying dispute, Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392; Cooper, 877 F.2d at 174, and "even though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be appointed in a case where the merits of the . . . claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore poor." Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) (denying counsel on appeal where petitioner's appeal was not frivolous but nevertheless appeared to have little merit).

Although plaintiff suggests a language barrier as the basis for appointment of counsel, plaintiff's complaint, amended complaint, discovery demands and motion for appointment of counsel demonstrate a capacity to communicate the factual basis of his claims to the Court. Accordingly, plaintiff has not established that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this time under the factors set forth above. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with this lawsuit pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. DATED: Buffalo, New York

June 2, 2015

s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder , Jr.

H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Castro v. Sobkowiak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 2, 2015
12-CV-1242A(Sr) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Castro v. Sobkowiak

Case Details

Full title:JUAN CASTRO, 11-B-2930, Plaintiff, v. PAUL SOBKOWIAK, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jun 2, 2015

Citations

12-CV-1242A(Sr) (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 2, 2015)