McFadden v. Keyser

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 17, 2023·No. 7:23-cv-00802·Unknown

Opinion

UsDC sUNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Oo DATE FILED: 8/17/2023 _ ROBERT McFADDEN, Plaintiff, -against- SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM KEYSER; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SECURITY GARY SIPPLE; CAPTAIN KENNETH LETUS; SERGEANT LISA WILSON; SERGEANT RONALD MILLER; FOOD SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR ANTHONY RIZZUTO; HEAD COOK JOHN PAPAVASILOU; COOK 23-CV-802 (NSR) ANTHONY CARMINATI; INMATE ORDER GRIEVANCE PROGRAM SUPERVISOR CORY PROSCIA; HEAD CHAPLIN OGBONNA STAINISLAUS; NURSE KATHLEEN BUTTLES; C.O. WILLIAM ELBERTH; C.0. EDMUND PUERSCHNER; C.0. TIMOTHY DOEINCK; C.O. OFFICER KINNE; C.O. RYAN SOUTHARD; C.O. PAUL HOLLAND; C.O. STEVE RYDER; C.O. GEORGE GILMOUR, SR.; HEARING OFFICER MORROW, Defendants. NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated in the Mid-State Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, regarding events that allegedly occurred at the Sullivan Correctional Facility, between 2019 and 2022. By order dated February 1, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.!

' Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee, even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Plaintiff, by letter received August 4, 2023, seeks appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 16.) Unlike in criminal proceedings, the Court does not have the power to obligate attorneys to represent indigent pro se litigants in civil cases. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 308–09 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court

may, at its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant by placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court’s pro bono panel. See Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). The Second Circuit set forth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60–62 (2d Cir. 1986). These cases direct the district courts to “first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and then, if this threshold is met, to consider “secondary criteria,” including the pro se litigant’s “ability to obtain representation independently, and his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation,

the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392 (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61–62). “Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the indigent’s chances of success are extremely slim,” and the Court should determine whether the pro se litigant’s “position seems likely to be of substance,” or shows “some chance of success.” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. Here, the proceedings are still in their early stages, and the parties have yet to enter discovery or make summary judgment motions. Thus, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff cannot handle the case without assistance, although this conclusion may change as the action progresses. Furthermore, the Court still cannot ascertain whether Plaintiffs position shows a strong chance of success, nor do the legal issues 1n this case appear to be particularly complex. Therefore, because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the appointment of pro bono counsel at this time, Plaintiff's request is DENIED without prejudice to renew at a later stage in the proceedings. Plaintiff, however, may wish to consult the legal clinic in this District that assists people who are parties in civil cases and who do not have lawyers. The New York Legal Assistance Group (“NYLAG’”) operates the clinic. Because the clinic is not part of the court, among other things, it cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. To receive limited-scope assistance from the Clinic, Plaintiff may mail a signed retainer and intake form to the NYLAG Pro Se Clinic at 40 Foley Square, LL22, NY, NY 10007. Once the paperwork is received, the Clinic will coordinate contact with the litigant, which may take up to two weeks after receipt of the paperwork. Copies of the Clinic’s flyer, retainer, and intake form are attached to this order. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address as listed on ECF and to show service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2023 White Plains, New York NELSON S.ROMAN United States District Judge

Y | A G Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys. New York ME Legal Assistance Group Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Incarcerated Civil Litigants in Federal District Court

e NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in The Clinic Can: Southern District of New York is a free legal staffed by attorneys, law students, and « Assist with amending complaints and respondin; to assist those who are representing motions to dismiss; or planning to represent themselves, = Represent litigants for settlement purposes and, incarcerated litigants, in civil lawsuits in limited circumstances, for depositions; Southern District of New York federal court, = Assist with written discovery; habeas cases. The clinic is not part of or = Recruit pro bono counsel for depositions and tris by the court. and en if a litigant has consulted with Clinic staff, = Assist with oppositions to summary judgment. they retain other counsel and that counsel . . Clinic staff cannot assist with habeas cases « a notice of appearance, they remain : criminal matters. are responsible for doing is necessary in connection with the case; NyT_AG may also be unable to assist if it determines still oe co a a ' its professional legal judgement, that (i) you have petay bg Keo mas met ay Dame refused to cooperate with the Clinic’s counsel or foll Moynihan Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, way sass . □ : the Clinic’s advice; (ii) any assistance would be York, New York, or by following the court’s . □□ i A J □ unreasonably difficult for NYLAG to carry out; or (ii for filing via email as a pro se litigant. . . . your case is or will become frivolous, unreasonable, groundless, or without merit. the Clinic: the clinic and request a copy of our retainer, please call (212) 659-6190 and leave a message or to us at the following address: NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants Thurgood Marshall Federal Courthouse Room LL22 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 mail a signed retainer back to the clinic at the above address. Once the paperwork is received, clinic will contact you.

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

McFadden v. Keyser, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

McFadden v. Keyser (McFadden v. Keyser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related