Elgalad v. New York City Department Of Education

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : AHMED M. ELGALAD, : : Plaintiff, : : 17-CV-4849 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF : EDUCATION, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: In determining whether to appoint pro bono counsel, the Court must consider “the merits of plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff’s ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the 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 or her claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). Additionally, 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. Here, Plaintiff represented that he was unable to retain counsel. (Doc. 72.) Accordingly, in light of the relevant case law and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court requests that pro bono counsel be appointed. Therefore, the Office of Pro Se Litigation is instructed to request and search for the services of a pro bono attorney. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2024 New York, New York □ Wf J Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge