Opinion
18-CV-7431 (RA)
11-22-2019
ORDER
:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging several violations of his constitutional rights. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's November 11, 2019 letter requesting that the Court appoint Plaintiff pro bono counsel.
In determining whether to grant an application for pro bono counsel, the Court must consider a number of factors including: the merits of Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel and Plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). As a threshold matter, in order to qualify for appointment of counsel Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). In addition, the Court must be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity, and thus, should not grant appointment of counsel indiscriminately. Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because the Court cannot compel attorneys to take on civil cases pro bono, and because it does not have the resources to pay counsel in civil matters, the granting of an application for pro bono counsel is a rare event. See Colon-Reyes v. Fegs Health and Human Servs. Sys., No. 12-CV-2223 (CM), 2012 WL 2353732, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012).
Having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that a more fully developed record is necessary before it can determine whether Plaintiff's chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date if additional grounds for the application are presented to the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
RONNIE ABRAMS
United States District Judge
Image materials not available for display.