Opinion
23-CV-5602
01-17-2024
ULYSE LUGO, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge
On, January 3, 2024, Plaintiff Ulyse Lugo filed a letter requesting that the Court appoint him counsel. ECF No. 17. The Court construes Plaintiff's letter as a motion for the appointment of counsel. In the letter, Plaintiff states that he requires the assistance of counsel due to an impairment with his right arm and fingers, which prevents him from being able to type. Id. at 12. Plaintiff also states that he requires the assistance of counsel because he does not have regular access to a law library. Id. at 2. Defendants have not opposed this motion.
The factors to be considered in ruling on a motion for pro bono counsel are well settled and include “the merits of plaintiff's case, the plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, plaintiff's efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel.” Cooper v. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172-74 (2d Cir. 1989). Of these, “the factor which command[s] the most attention [is] the merits.” Id. Indeed:
[c]ourts do not perform a useful service if they appoint a volunteer lawyer to a case which a private lawyer would not take if it were brought to his or her attention. Nor do courts perform a socially justified function when they request the services of a volunteer
lawyer for a meritless case that no lawyer would take were the plaintiff not indigent.Id.
At this point in time, Plaintiff has not made a “threshold showing of some likelihood of merit.” Id. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice at the current stage.
Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group's (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this Court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the Court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the Court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the NYLAG clinic is attached to this order.
SO ORDERED.