Bonilla v. Future Sales, Inc.

E.D. New York

Bonilla v. Future Sales, Inc.

378 F. Supp. 2d 170, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18583, 2005 WL 1791596

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedJuly 28, 2005

DocketCV 05-1269(SJF)(ETB)

StatusPublished

This text of 378 F. Supp. 2d 170 (Bonilla v. Future Sales, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonilla v. Future Sales, Inc., 378 F. Supp. 2d 170, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18583, 2005 WL 1791596 (E.D.N.Y. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*171 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BOYLE, United States Magistrate Judge.

By affidavits dated June 28, 2005 and July 6, 2005, the pro se plaintiff, Jose D. Bonilla (“Bonilla” or “plaintiff’), makes application for appointment of pro bono counsel to prosecute his employment discrimination (age and country of origin) action against his former employer, Future Sales, Inc., who terminated his employment for cause.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that “a court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” A district court possesses broad discretion when deciding whether to appoint counsel under the statute. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir.1986). When analyzing a request for counsel, the court should take a “flexible and sensitive case-by-case approach.” Jenkins v. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 880 (2d Cir.1983). The court should consider, inter alia, the complexity of the legal issues raised in the complaint, the plaintiffs ability to conduct a factual investigation, and the plaintiffs ability to present the case. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.1986).

Here, the pro se plaintiff, a 46 year-old male, appeared before me on June 28, 2005 at an initial conference. It is evident from that conference that the plaintiff is unable to adequately represent himself in this action due to the language barrier. The plaintiffs natural language is Spanish.

Based on the pro se plaintiffs great difficulty in reading, writing and understanding the English language, without counsel the plaintiff will have great difficulty in conducting a factual investigation and presenting his case. I also find that plaintiffs claims of discrimination against his employer involve complex issues of law. In the interest of justice, Spanish speaking counsel is appointed from the pro bono panel to the plaintiff in this action.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*171 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BOYLE, United States Magistrate Judge.

By affidavits dated June 28, 2005 and July 6, 2005, the pro se plaintiff, Jose D. Bonilla (“Bonilla” or “plaintiff’), makes application for appointment of pro bono counsel to prosecute his employment discrimination (age and country of origin) action against his former employer, Future Sales, Inc., who terminated his employment for cause.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) provides that “a court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” A district court possesses broad discretion when deciding whether to appoint counsel under the statute. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir.1986). When analyzing a request for counsel, the court should take a “flexible and sensitive case-by-case approach.” Jenkins v. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 880 (2d Cir.1983). The court should consider, inter alia, the complexity of the legal issues raised in the complaint, the plaintiffs ability to conduct a factual investigation, and the plaintiffs ability to present the case. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.1986).

Here, the pro se plaintiff, a 46 year-old male, appeared before me on June 28, 2005 at an initial conference. It is evident from that conference that the plaintiff is unable to adequately represent himself in this action due to the language barrier. The plaintiffs natural language is Spanish.

Based on the pro se plaintiffs great difficulty in reading, writing and understanding the English language, without counsel the plaintiff will have great difficulty in conducting a factual investigation and presenting his case. I also find that plaintiffs claims of discrimination against his employer involve complex issues of law. In the interest of justice, Spanish speaking counsel is appointed from the pro bono panel to the plaintiff in this action.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 F. Supp. 2d 170, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18583, 2005 WL 1791596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonilla-v-future-sales-inc-nyed-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack