Kelly v. Tanvir Choudhri M.D.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x : KIERAN KELLY, : Plaintiff, : No. 18-CV-12214 (ALC) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : TANVIR CHOUDHRI M.D., et al., : : Defendants, : : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s request for a status conference to discuss discovery concerns. (ECF 55). As directed on November 5, 2019, Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendants and file a status letter by Friday, December 6, 2019, outlining any outstanding discovery disputes and proposing dates for the next status conference. (ECF 51). The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel. (ECF 41). That request is DENIED at this time without prejudice to renew at a later date. Unlike in criminal cases, there is no requirement that courts supply indigent litigants with counsel in civil cases. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, courts have “broad discretion” when deciding whether to seek pro bono representation for a civil litigant. Id. In light of limited funds and volunteer attorneys, courts must request the services of pro bono counsel sparingly and with reference to public benefit. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172-73 (2d Cir. 1989). Here, Plaintiff is able to work with Defendants in participating in discovery and has not shown that pro bono counsel is necessary at this stage of the litigation. The Clerk is directed to close ECF 41 and ECF 50. The Clerk is further respectfully requested to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED. s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: November 19, 2019 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge