UMIEINE ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK oe DATE FILED: _ 1/9/2026 □ MR. JEREMIAH FOLSOM HERBERT, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Plaintiff, ASSIGNED COUNSEL -A gainst- 23 Civ 9529 (NSR) Lieutenant Nicholas Korines, 7am to 3pm, et al.,
Defendants. ATTN: Justice Nelson Roman Please take notice as pro-se plaintiff and pursuant to 1915; herby request this court appoint counsel to represent plaintiff in this case.
1) Plaintiff on July 1st, 2024 was indeed granted in-forma pauperis (IFP) status by court and is
unable to afford counsel. . □ 2) On November 3rd, 2024 Plaintiff timely filed second Amended complaint to which these court's docket # 102! 3) Plaintiff, has extremely limited knowledge of the law, court shall appoint counsel to represent plaintiff to have each defendants
avid Tragis , oo | □□ | Mark Miller, NELSONS. ROMAN US. TRICT JUDGE Joel Serrano, Lee NY Christopher Barto, Defendants deposition's need to be properly conducted and needs to be taken and Plaintiff will need to cross exam medical expert witnesses, Appointment of pro-bono Counsel will indeed be necessary upon this case for plaintiff seeks non-jury trial demand. se Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied for the same reasons they were denied a mere month ago per the Order on December 4, 2025 (ECF No. 64.) The Court directs pro se Plaintiff to cease making repetitive requests in short and notes that this matter is in the middle of motion practice per the briefing schedule set at ECF No. 61 for Plaintiff's to dismiss. Upon resolution of said motion, the matter may then proceed to discovery. The Clerk of Court is kindly to terminate the motion at ECF No. 68 and to mail Plaintiff a copy of this endorsement as well as another copy of the Orders at ECF Nos. 61 and 64 at his address as listed on ECF and to show service on the docket. SOORDERED:
4) On July 31st, 2025 per order of Justice Nelson S. Roman, plaintiff indeed does timely submit this application for Pro-bono Counsel for credibility issues supports the appointment of counsel. (see: Steel vs shah) (87 f.3d 1266,1271 (11th cic.1996) 5) Plaintiff pro-se, shall have appointment of counsel granted based off facts he is at a clear disadvantage against well-known civil right attorney Maurice Nwikpo-Oppong,AAG; and the whole Attorney General; Plaintiff case is getting into discovery rules and tactics and legal issues supports factors for appointment of pro-bono counsel to be fully granted by this court.
THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF In deciding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the court should consider “the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent to investigate the fact, the existence of . conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent to present his claim and the complexity of the legal issues.” Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8" Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In addition, courts have suggested that the most important factor is whether the case appears to have merit. Carmona vy. U.S. Bureau of Prsions, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). Each of these factors weighs in favor of appointment of counsel in this case. Factual Complexity :On October _3',2023 plaintiffs constitutional right indeed violated under color of law and under Eighth Amendment Right as Prisoner inside DOCS custody and at all times relevant while plaintiff was indeed incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility . Plaintiff is a layman of the law, and does not know the procedures in conducting depositions that need to be conducted in order to succeed and move forward in this case. 2. T he Plaintiff's ability to investigate: The Plaintiff Jeremiah Herbert Pro-se/ general population) and has no ability to investigate the facts. For example, he is unable to identify, locate, and interview the witness). He is in the same situation with regard to developing the facts as an
inmate who has been transferred to a different facility, a factor that several courts have sited in appointment of counsel. Tucker v. Randall, 948 F.2d 288, 391-92 (7" Cir. 1991). Gatson vy. Coughlin, 679 F.Supp. 270, 273 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). in addition, this case will requires considerable discovery concerning the identity of witnesses, On October 3.2023 plaintiffs constitutional right indeed violated under color of law and under Eighth Amendment Right as Prisoner inside DOCS custody and at all times relevant while plaintiff was indeed incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility . (about the incident, any prior history of misuse of force by the officers, and plaintiff's medical / mental health records / history. See Parham y. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 459 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding counsel should have been appointed because “prisoner’s lack of legal experience, and the complex discovery rules clearly put him at a disadvantage in countering the defendant’s / State’s discovery tactics ... these [discovery] rules prevented [the Plaintiff / . Defendant] from presenting an effective case below.’’. 3. Conflicting testimony: The Plaintiff's / Defendant’s account of his (beatings by officers) is squarely in conflict with the statements of the officers. This aspect of the case will be credibility contest between the defendants and the plaintiff, the existence of these credibility issues supports the appointment of counsel. (Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11" Cir. 1996); Gatson vy. Coughlin, 679 F.Supp. at 273. 4. The ability of the indigent to present his claim: The Plaintiff / Defendant is an indigent prisoner with no legal training, a factor that supports the appointment of counsel. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7" Cir. 1997). In addition, he is confined at Eastern Correctional Facility with very limited access to materials. Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703-04 (8" Cir. 1992) (citing lack for ready access to a law library as a factor supporting appointment of counsel). J. Legal Complexity: The large number of defendants, some who are supervisory officials, presents complex legal issues of determining which defendants were sufficiently personally
involved in the Constitutional violations to be held liable. Hendrick v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding complexity of supervisory liability supported appointment of counsel). In addition, the plaintiff has asked for a (Non) Jury Trial, which requires much greater legal skill than the plaintiff has or can develop. Solls v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 958 (9" Cir. 2008) (prisoner with eighth grade education and no legal training is “ill-suited” to conduct a jury trial. Merit of the case: The Plaintiff's allegations, if proved, clearly would establish a constitutional violation. The unprovoked and injurious beating alleged in the complaint clearly states an Fourth and Eighth Amendment violation under color of law. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UMIEINE ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK oe DATE FILED: _ 1/9/2026 □ MR. JEREMIAH FOLSOM HERBERT, MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Plaintiff, ASSIGNED COUNSEL -A gainst- 23 Civ 9529 (NSR) Lieutenant Nicholas Korines, 7am to 3pm, et al.,
Defendants. ATTN: Justice Nelson Roman Please take notice as pro-se plaintiff and pursuant to 1915; herby request this court appoint counsel to represent plaintiff in this case.
1) Plaintiff on July 1st, 2024 was indeed granted in-forma pauperis (IFP) status by court and is
unable to afford counsel. . □ 2) On November 3rd, 2024 Plaintiff timely filed second Amended complaint to which these court's docket # 102! 3) Plaintiff, has extremely limited knowledge of the law, court shall appoint counsel to represent plaintiff to have each defendants
avid Tragis , oo | □□ | Mark Miller, NELSONS. ROMAN US. TRICT JUDGE Joel Serrano, Lee NY Christopher Barto, Defendants deposition's need to be properly conducted and needs to be taken and Plaintiff will need to cross exam medical expert witnesses, Appointment of pro-bono Counsel will indeed be necessary upon this case for plaintiff seeks non-jury trial demand. se Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied for the same reasons they were denied a mere month ago per the Order on December 4, 2025 (ECF No. 64.) The Court directs pro se Plaintiff to cease making repetitive requests in short and notes that this matter is in the middle of motion practice per the briefing schedule set at ECF No. 61 for Plaintiff's to dismiss. Upon resolution of said motion, the matter may then proceed to discovery. The Clerk of Court is kindly to terminate the motion at ECF No. 68 and to mail Plaintiff a copy of this endorsement as well as another copy of the Orders at ECF Nos. 61 and 64 at his address as listed on ECF and to show service on the docket. SOORDERED:
4) On July 31st, 2025 per order of Justice Nelson S. Roman, plaintiff indeed does timely submit this application for Pro-bono Counsel for credibility issues supports the appointment of counsel. (see: Steel vs shah) (87 f.3d 1266,1271 (11th cic.1996) 5) Plaintiff pro-se, shall have appointment of counsel granted based off facts he is at a clear disadvantage against well-known civil right attorney Maurice Nwikpo-Oppong,AAG; and the whole Attorney General; Plaintiff case is getting into discovery rules and tactics and legal issues supports factors for appointment of pro-bono counsel to be fully granted by this court.
THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF In deciding whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, the court should consider “the factual complexity of the case, the ability of the indigent to investigate the fact, the existence of . conflicting testimony, the ability of the indigent to present his claim and the complexity of the legal issues.” Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8" Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In addition, courts have suggested that the most important factor is whether the case appears to have merit. Carmona vy. U.S. Bureau of Prsions, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). Each of these factors weighs in favor of appointment of counsel in this case. Factual Complexity :On October _3',2023 plaintiffs constitutional right indeed violated under color of law and under Eighth Amendment Right as Prisoner inside DOCS custody and at all times relevant while plaintiff was indeed incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility . Plaintiff is a layman of the law, and does not know the procedures in conducting depositions that need to be conducted in order to succeed and move forward in this case. 2. T he Plaintiff's ability to investigate: The Plaintiff Jeremiah Herbert Pro-se/ general population) and has no ability to investigate the facts. For example, he is unable to identify, locate, and interview the witness). He is in the same situation with regard to developing the facts as an
inmate who has been transferred to a different facility, a factor that several courts have sited in appointment of counsel. Tucker v. Randall, 948 F.2d 288, 391-92 (7" Cir. 1991). Gatson vy. Coughlin, 679 F.Supp. 270, 273 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). in addition, this case will requires considerable discovery concerning the identity of witnesses, On October 3.2023 plaintiffs constitutional right indeed violated under color of law and under Eighth Amendment Right as Prisoner inside DOCS custody and at all times relevant while plaintiff was indeed incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility . (about the incident, any prior history of misuse of force by the officers, and plaintiff's medical / mental health records / history. See Parham y. Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 459 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding counsel should have been appointed because “prisoner’s lack of legal experience, and the complex discovery rules clearly put him at a disadvantage in countering the defendant’s / State’s discovery tactics ... these [discovery] rules prevented [the Plaintiff / . Defendant] from presenting an effective case below.’’. 3. Conflicting testimony: The Plaintiff's / Defendant’s account of his (beatings by officers) is squarely in conflict with the statements of the officers. This aspect of the case will be credibility contest between the defendants and the plaintiff, the existence of these credibility issues supports the appointment of counsel. (Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11" Cir. 1996); Gatson vy. Coughlin, 679 F.Supp. at 273. 4. The ability of the indigent to present his claim: The Plaintiff / Defendant is an indigent prisoner with no legal training, a factor that supports the appointment of counsel. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7" Cir. 1997). In addition, he is confined at Eastern Correctional Facility with very limited access to materials. Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703-04 (8" Cir. 1992) (citing lack for ready access to a law library as a factor supporting appointment of counsel). J. Legal Complexity: The large number of defendants, some who are supervisory officials, presents complex legal issues of determining which defendants were sufficiently personally
involved in the Constitutional violations to be held liable. Hendrick v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 394 (2d Cir. 1997) (holding complexity of supervisory liability supported appointment of counsel). In addition, the plaintiff has asked for a (Non) Jury Trial, which requires much greater legal skill than the plaintiff has or can develop. Solls v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 958 (9" Cir. 2008) (prisoner with eighth grade education and no legal training is “ill-suited” to conduct a jury trial. Merit of the case: The Plaintiff's allegations, if proved, clearly would establish a constitutional violation. The unprovoked and injurious beating alleged in the complaint clearly states an Fourth and Eighth Amendment violation under color of law. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). the allegations of denial of medical care amount to “intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed,” Which the Supreme Court has especially cited as an example of unconstitutional deliberate indifference to prisoners’ medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976). The unjustified denial of witnesses, conviction of a disciplinary offense with no supporting evidence, and the failure to give a meaningful statment of reasons for the decision are all violations of clearly established due process principles. See Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 497, 105 S.Ct. 2192 (1985); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 447, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 559, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974). On its face, claims for Excessive physical force used by defendants □ Nicholas Korines, David Tragis , Mark Miller, Joel Serrano, Christopher Barto,
And shall proceed to trial demand, Claims for In-Adequate living conditions with black mold, feces, and mildew inside h-block cell shall proceed to trial and were indeed violated by way of each defendant at Green Haven on Oct. 3'",2023 until Nov. 4.2023; Plaintiff did in fact appeal all grievances under DOCS directive 4040 in a timely fashion all claims shall proceed to non jury trial demand upon action and shall proceed to trial action. 6. And to be properly examined plaintiff did indeed fully sustained physical serious injuries to which damages shall be awarded and pro bono counsel shall indeed be granted by this court. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court should grant the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
4h Date: December { 2025 Respectfully Submitted, □ oD? fis
Jeremiah Herbert,23b1459 Eastern Correctional Facility P.O. Box 338 Napanoch, N.Y. 12458-0338
| □□ Ave
- . Reece S&S □ Oo 7 ss O fF □□ ~ or . □□ os ps ee . ee ° □□ so) YOO 8 □□
LZ. [| a a □□ \ 1 Ye “pS
2, * 29 t t *4 3 □
ee < 49 □ p 2 C CGC Le O 4 C □□ yp 2 Peo
7 ~ if 0 (" og & 6 3 TT
□