Gomez v. Cullen

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JORGE GOMEZ, Plaintiff, -v- Civ. No. 9:21-CV-658 (GTS/DJS) J.B. FOSTER, et al, Defendants.

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: JORGE GOMEZ 72297-054 Plaintiff, pro se FC] Fairton P.O. Box 420 Fairton, NJ 08320 HON. CARLA B. FREEDMAN C. HARRIS DAGUE, ESQ. U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Defendants 445 Broadway, Room 218 Albany, NY 12207 DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge DECISION AND ORDER wn This Decision and Order addresses several pending motions by pro se Plaintiff Jorge Gomez. First, Plaintiff has moved to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 121. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks responses from Defendants as to outstanding discovery demands. /d. atp.1. Following the filing of that Motion, this Court extended Defendants’ time to respond to those discovery

demands. Dkt. No. 128. Those responses have now been provided. Dkt. Nos. 143 & 145. Plaintiff's request to compel those responses 1s, therefore, denied as moot. Plaintiff has also renewed his request for appointed counsel. Dkt. No. 138. Multiple prior requests for the appointment of counsel have been denied. Dkt. Nos. 45, 65, 86, 92, &

130. The Court’s most recent denial cautioned Plaintiff against renewed requests absent a change of circumstances. Dkt. No. 130 at p.5. The present Motion does not offer any change of circumstances that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s prior Orders denying the appointment of counsel. Plaintiffs Motion, therefore, is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (Dkt. No. 121) and for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 138) are DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties. IT ISSO ORDERED. Date: December 29, 2022 Albany, New York (out jel Teena ” U.SMMagistrate Judge

' The Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion seeks “appointment of counsel, for expert testimony” and then recites certain areas as to which counsel might assist him in obtaining an expert. Dkt. No. 138 at p.2. To the extent the Motion could be interpreted as one for the actual appointment of an expert, itis denied. Plaintiff has no right to the appointment of an expert and has not made a showing warranting such an appointment at this time. Muhammad v. Wright, 2011 WL 1458064, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2011) (Given the large number of cases involving indigent prisoners, and the substantial costs that may result, appointment of an expert should be used sparingly”).