Opinion
08 Civ. 01520 (BSJ) (KNF).
February 9, 2009
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
In a writing dated January 29, 2009, Anthony Medina ("Medina"), proceeding pro se, requests that the Court: (1) appoint a guardian ad litem for him, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 17, because he has a visual impairment; and (2) direct that documents from the Court and defense counsel be enlarged to accommodate his visual disability. In that writing, the plaintiff also discusses the Court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel and clarifies that, although an attorney had agreed to represent him, Medina requested that the attorney "restructure the proposed retainer agreement," and, thereafter, the attorney did not contact Medina. Having considered the plaintiffs request,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the plaintiff's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem is denied. See, e.g., Santiago v. C.O. Campisi Shield # 4592, 91 F. Supp. 2d 665, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding that a plaintiff's inability to read did not render him "incompetent" so as to justify appointment of a guardian ad litem). With respect to the plaintiff's request that documents be enlarged for him, the plaintiff is directed to provide a supplemental writing to the Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, clarifying the font size, or the scope of enlargement, he believes is necessary to accommodate his visual impairment.
Liberally construing the plaintiff's submission as seeking reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, see Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) ("the submissions of apro se litigant must be construed liberally"), the request is denied. The record before the Court demonstrates the plaintiff was able to acquire counsel, but their relationship terminated due to a fee-structuring disagreement. The plaintiff's past success in securing counsel dictates against appointing counsel.See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[ 28 U.S.C. § 1915] itself requires that the indigent be unable to obtain counsel before appointment will even be considered").
SO ORDERED: