Lithgow v. Keyser

S.D. New York

Lithgow v. Keyser

DecidedMarch 15, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00998

StatusUnknown

This text of Lithgow v. Keyser (Lithgow v. Keyser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lithgow v. Keyser, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Bismarck Lithgow, DATE FILED:_3/15/2021__ Petitioner, 1:21-cv-00998 (AJN) (SDA) -against- ORDER William F. Keyser, Respondent.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: The pro se Petitioner in this case has made a motion for the appointment of counsel. (See Pet.’s Mot., ECF No. 3.) Applying the factors set forth in Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989), the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s motion on the ground that the application together with the other papers filed in this action do not at this time demonstrate that Petitioner’s claims are likely to be of sufficient substance to warrant seeking counsel. In addition, the case does not at this time appear to be of such a character that Petitioner will be unable to address relevant facts or deal with other issues that may be expected to be raised. The Court will seek the appointment of counsel without further request by Petitioner if future review of this case demonstrates that the appointment of counsel is warranted. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York March 15, 2021 irr a. Carr STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Bismarck Lithgow, DATE FILED:_3/15/2021__ Petitioner, 1:21-cv-00998 (AJN) (SDA) -against- ORDER William F. Keyser, Respondent.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: The pro se Petitioner in this case has made a motion for the appointment of counsel. (See Pet.’s Mot., ECF No. 3.) Applying the factors set forth in Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1989), the Court hereby DENIES Petitioner’s motion on the ground that the application together with the other papers filed in this action do not at this time demonstrate that Petitioner’s claims are likely to be of sufficient substance to warrant seeking counsel. In addition, the case does not at this time appear to be of such a character that Petitioner will be unable to address relevant facts or deal with other issues that may be expected to be raised. The Court will seek the appointment of counsel without further request by Petitioner if future review of this case demonstrates that the appointment of counsel is warranted. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Petitioner. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York March 15, 2021 irr a. Carr STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lithgow v. Keyser, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lithgow-v-keyser-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack