Jordan H. Moore v. County of Westchester, ET AL.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 7:18-cv-11547
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eo □□ ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JORDAN H. MOORE, Plaintiff, 18-ev-11547 (NSR) -against- MEMORANDUM & ORDER COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, ET AL. Defendants.

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge Plaintiff Jordan H. Moore requested appointment of pro bono counsel via a letter motion dated October 10, 2025. (ECF No. 101 and attached hereto.) Unlike in criminal proceedings, the Court does not have the power to obligate attorneys to represent indigent pro se litigants in civil cases. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Towa, 490 U.S. 296, 308-09 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may, at its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list 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 Second Circuit has set forth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases 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, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). These cases direct the district courts to “first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and then, if this threshold is met, to consider

“secondary criteria,” including the pro se litigant’s “ability to obtain representation independently, and his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392 (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d

at 61-62). “Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the indigent’s chances of success are extremely slim,” and the Court should determine whether the pro se litigant’s “position seems likely to be of substance,” or shows “some chance of success.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. This is not Plaintiff’s first application for pro bono counsel. (See, e.g. ECF Nos 15, 76.) The subject application for pro bono counsel is similar to the past requests. Plaintiff indicates that he is indigent and that his current imprisonment and limited access to the correctional facility’s law library greatly limits his ability to litigate this action. The litigation in this case has not developed at all. In fact, this case has been pending since December 10, 2018 without any significant activity in part because Plaintiff claimed repeatedly at

one point that he had lost his legal documents upon transferring from one facility to another and thus was unable to fill out the proper information for his application for default judgment against Defendants. (See ECF No. 46.) Consequently, more than four years since the commencement of this action, discovery is not yet complete; thus, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s position shows a strong chance of success or that the legal issues in this case are particularly complex. Additionally, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is unable to handle the case without assistance, although this conclusion may change as the action progresses. Therefore, because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel at this time, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage in the proceedings. Plaintiffis cautioned to wait until such time as the litigation develops substantially. Should Plaintiff make another application for pro bono counsel at a later stage of the litigation, he is cautioned to do so by demonstrating to the Court that good cause exists to grant his application; a pro forma application will not suffice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 101 and to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at his address as listed on ECF and to show service on the docket. Dated: October 24, 2025 sO OR ERE White Plains, New York Co jefe an NELSON S. ROMAN United States District Judge

DISTRICT OF NEW YoRIc

Bordan \\. Wore ok Prawn ~ agoans - obo DAWN et oh DeCendorts. N\OTLON KPporN \ WENT Yo 28 V.3.C. $1aQ\5@)@ OF CouNSEL noes Sor OND order argon” \\ AY Comsel Xo ve resenk |x . Ly CV WOW" 5 wn Wn NSBR - JCM

NS onadole Lo atGocd Corcsel, has requesked lear bo eroceed “w Sorta

“wnemsoamenk will ayes mk | OCT 20 2025 4 \o Yaagedke Wane Sues \udlyed 6c \ : \W\ Wo □□ OC Cow ond ual Gene sey [PRO SE OFFICE Pear cand we Vedki ee Plai nh ymtted access \oy Me \eus Varosry conch lenow ledign o€ \he low | Ww Ws Case WL we We

ANNO Please Lo” Presenk evidence COS CKaM Ne wiLneses. hos mode repeared efforrd to & lawyer Tange Kool” Named and addressed? ae geoetheS le Way suis yeclecdt \© □□□ tory) “ \. \eAe\ docu menmS BWC Wa SAWN a daar lo asi. \ dines Teed nek \\he court appar We Moor, a member of The Bar assocrietiOny a5 AWis case. ©

hele Meco Coucls Aa

TLBCVE NSR= TOM

“~~ ONS OA $6 ees 0 Poo ® □ Oo Fa

| “ea E fi a9 £ fy □ oe □ on &

Bows! og. Nwi/ □

“A La ral m CO. = a oO

Ree 2 2

. fp K ae Sree

□□ + > + + 4°