Cruzado v. Combs

S.D. New York

Cruzado v. Combs

DecidedFebruary 26, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-08203

StatusUnknown

This text of Cruzado v. Combs (Cruzado v. Combs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cruzado v. Combs, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY NELSON CRUZADO, Plaintiff, 24-CV-8203 (LTS) -against- ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL SHAWN JOHN COMBS, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Suwannee Correctional Institution in Florida, brought this action pro se. Plaintiff filed applications for the court to request pro bono counsel. (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s applications are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding an alleged sexual assault in 2013, by private parties. As set forth in a separate order, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction of this action in federal court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for counsel are denied without prejudice to renewal. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s requests for counsel (ECF Nos. 2, 5) are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate Plaintiff’s motions (ECF 9, 11) for an update regarding the status of his case. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY NELSON CRUZADO, Plaintiff, 24-CV-8203 (LTS) -against- ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL SHAWN JOHN COMBS, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in Suwannee Correctional Institution in Florida, brought this action pro se. Plaintiff filed applications for the court to request pro bono counsel. (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s applications are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and Plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding an alleged sexual assault in 2013, by private parties. As set forth in a separate order, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts establishing subject matter jurisdiction of this action in federal court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests for counsel are denied without prejudice to renewal. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s requests for counsel (ECF Nos. 2, 5) are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate Plaintiff’s motions (ECF 9, 11) for an update regarding the status of his case. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cruzado v. Combs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruzado-v-combs-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack