Lurch v. The City of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x : ROBERT DEREK LURCH, JR., : Plaintiff, : 19-CV-11254 (VEC) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : -------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: On November 10, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff submitted an application requesting appointment of counsel. (ECF 44). In determining whether to grant a request 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 plaintiff's 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, plaintiff must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success in order for the Court to grant plaintiff's request for counsel. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application and given the proceedings to date, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for counsel is DENIED. In light of the District Court’s March 29, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF 57) that dismissed the complaint and the May 11, 2021 Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), Plaintiff fails to meet the threshold burden that his claims have substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Clerk of Court close ECF 44 and mail a copy of this Order to

the pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED.

s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: May 13, 2021 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge