In Re: JCK Legacy Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03727
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: JCK LEGACY COMPANY, Debtor, ORDER 25 Civ. 3727 ALBERTO COLT-SARMIENTO, Appellant, -against- YALE SCOTT BOGEN, Appellee.

Ramos, D.J.: Appellant Alberto Colt-Sarmiento, who is appearing pro se, filed the instant appeal on May 5, 2025, seeking review of a March 21, 2025 Bankruptcy Court order denying his motion to amend, reconsider, or obtain relief from a previous Bankruptcy Order disallowing his proof of claim. See Doc. 1 at at 5—6. On August 7, 2025, Mr. Colt- Sarmiento filed a request that this Court waive the filing fee for the appeal and appoint pro bono counsel. Doc. 4. Based on Mr. Colt-Sarmiento’s incarcerated status, leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Courts do not have the power to obligate attorneys to represent pro se litigants in civil cases. Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Jowa, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may, in its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request that an attorney represent an indigent

litigant by placing the matter on a list that is circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court’s Pro Bono Panel. Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases were set forth by the Second Circuit in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case and the plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 296 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing factors set forth in Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-62). Of these, the Court must “first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and, if this threshold requirement is met, then the Court must consider additional factors, including the pro se litigant’s “ability to handle the case without assistance,” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is unable to conclude that Mr. Colt- Sarmiento’s claims are likely to have merit, although naturally that may change as the litigation progresses. Accordingly, Mr. Colt-Sarmiento’s application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later stage in the case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated New vorke New York FO SV EDGARDO Ramos, U.S.D.J.