Kalarickal v. Wilkie

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED . DOC #2 ened □□

Plaintiff, : : 20-CV-10249 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER ROBERT WILKIE et al., : Defendants. : wn KX VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an application for appointment of counsel. In determining whether to grant an application for 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 plaintiffs 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 claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1986). In reviewing a request for appointment of counsel, 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. A more fully developed record will be necessary before it can be determined whether Plaintiff's chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs application for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at such time as the existence of a potentially meritorious claim may be demonstrated.

The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to a mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 14, 2021 on New York, New York if Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge