Opinion
09 Civ. 9918 (JGK).
November 1, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has received the attached correspondence from the plaintiff in which the plaintiff requests various relief.
In the correspondence dated October 26, 2011, the plaintiff moves the Court for a preliminary injunction. The defendants are directed to respond to this motion by November 15, 2011. The plaintiff should reply by November 25, 2011.
In the correspondence dated October 18, 2011, the plaintiff makes three requests of the Court. First, the plaintiff asks the Court to appoint legal counsel to address the plaintiff's legal needs. However, from the papers provided, the Court cannot determine whether the necessary showing for appointment of counsel has been met. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated factors that should guide the Court's discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Moscicki, No. 99 Civ. 2427 (JGK), 2000 WL 511642, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the petitioner must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. Only then can the Court consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: "plaintiff's ability to obtain representation independently, and his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). The plaintiff has not yet made such a showing. The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time.
Second, the plaintiff asks the Court to order the United States Marshals Service to effectuate service on the defendants. The docket sheet indicates that the Pro Se Office has sent the plaintiff an amended Rule 4 package but that service has not yet been effectuated. The United States Marshals Service confirms that the plaintiff has provided the required information on Form 285 and that it is attempting service of process. The plaintiff need take no further action, and the Court need not order the United States Marshals Service to do what it is already attempting to do.
Third, the plaintiff seeks permission to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint by November 21, 2011. SO ORDERED.
Graph