Knight v. Department of Correction and Community Services

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: November 28, 2023
• Docket: 6:21-cv-06633
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________

FREDDIE KNIGHT, DECISION & ORDER Plaintiff, 21-CV-6633EAW v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and COMMUNITY SERVICES,

Defendant. _______________________________________

On October 13, 2021, plaintiff Freddie Knight (“plaintiff”) asserting claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that DOCCS was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (Docket ## 1, 10, 13). Currently before this Court is plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel. (Docket # 24). In his submission, plaintiff states that he is legally blind and that he requires legal assistance to litigate his claims. (Id.). It is well-settled that there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Although the court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), see, e.g., Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988), such assignment of counsel is clearly within the judge’s discretion. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to assign counsel include the following: 1. Whether the indigent’s claims seem likely to be of substance; 2. Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts concerning his claim;

3. Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder;

4. Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and

5. Whether there are any special reasons why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.

Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). The court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because “every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Having reviewed the facts presented herein in light of the factors required by law and pursuant to the standards promulgated by Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d at 392, and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d at 58, I conclude that appointment of counsel to assist plaintiff with the prosecution of his claims is justified by the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Docket # 24) is GRANTED. This is a “full-scope appointment” pursuant to Rule 83.8(a)(1) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and “the appointed attorney shall represent [plaintiff] in the action until a final judgment is entered (or some other order is entered terminating the action).” See Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.8(e)(1). The Court hereby directs that the Pro Bono Program Administrator begin the process for appointment of pro bono counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marian W. Payson MARIAN W. PAYSON United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: Rochester, New York November 28, 2023