Rodriguez v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 3, 2025
Docket1:20-cv-09840
StatusUnknown

This text of Rodriguez v. City of New York (Rodriguez v. City of New York) 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
Rodriguez v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | SECT RO MOREL al SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: PETER RODRIGUEZ, [Dane cep Plaintiff, 20-CV-09840 (JHR) (BCM) -against- ORDER REGARDING GENERAL PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. The above-referenced action has been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, and for report and recommendation on dispositive motions, if any, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). All pretrial motions and applications must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, attached hereto and available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Background Plaintiff Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, filed this action on November 20, 2020, against the City of New York (City) and various correctional officers at the Manhattan Detention Complex. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that on August 31, 2020, after a fire broke out in his cell, he was sprayed with a fire extinguisher and pepper spray, after which he was left in an elevator for fifteen minutes before receiving a decontamination shower. Second Amended Complaint (SAC) (Dkt. 30) 4 1-6. Plaintiff further alleges that when he was taken to the medical clinic after his decontamination shower, he was not permitted to request medical treatment. Jd. {| 7-8. When he was returned to his cell, it was still filled with smoke, fire debris, and pepper spray. Id §] 9. Additionally, plaintiff alleges that in December 2020 — after this action was filed — a correctional officer made threats

against him in order to induce him to drop the lawsuit. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. Plaintiff seeks damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for personal injuries and emotional distress. Id. ¶¶ 10, 14-15, 27. On June 23, 2021, the Honorable Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge, denied without prejudice plaintiff's first motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel. (Dkt. 67.) Fact discovery closed on October 28, 2022 (see Dkt. 128 at 2), after which defendants filed a motion

for summary judgment on December 29, 2022. (Dkt. 143.) Plaintiff, who was (and remains) incarcerated, notified the Court by letter dated January 11, 2023, that he was unable to properly oppose the motion due to difficulties accessing certain surveillance video footage produced in discovery. (Dkt. 148.) On January 18, 2023, defendants responded that they had previously sent a letter to the correctional facility where plaintiff was held, requesting that he be permitted to view the video. (Dkt. 149.) On January 24, 2023, Judge Woods ordered: "If Plaintiff disagrees that the video is available at the facility, or if he cannot access the video, Plaintiff may submit a letter to the Court. Plaintiff's letter should detail any and all steps taken to access the video at the facility." (Dkt. 150

at 2.) By letter dated January 30 and filed February 24, 2023, plaintiff explained that "it would be impossible for [him] to be able to continue litigating" the case due to his custody status, lack of access to a law library, and his lack of legal knowledge, and requested that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice. (Dkt. 151 at 1.) Plaintiff did not address whether he had been able to access the surveillance footage. On February 28, 2023, the case was reassigned to the Hon. Jennifer H. Rearden, United States District Judge. By Order dated March 3, 2023, Judge Rearden suggested that, prior to dismissing the case, plaintiff consult with a legal clinic (then called the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) Clinic, but since renamed the City Bar Justice Center) that provides assistance to pro se litigants in this district. (Dkt. 152 at 1.) By letter dated March 7 and filed May 1, 2023, plaintiff advised that he had consulted with the NYLAG Clinic, which offered him limited-scope assistance to help him oppose the summary judgment motion, and had "mailed a signed retainer and intake papers" to the clinic. (Dkt. 154.) However, in a letter dated July 28 and filed on August 7, 2023, plaintiff notified the Court that "current prison conditions [were] making it almost

impossible for the plaintiff to properly communicate with the Court's assigned legal assistant," and requested – again – that the Court appoint pro bono counsel for him. (Dkt. 155 at 3-4.) Plaintiff added that he was still unable to view the video. (Id. at 4.) Most recently, by letter dated November 10, 2024 – but postmarked January 30, 2025, and received on February 3, 2025 – plaintiff requests a teleconference with the Court in order to set a schedule for him to respond to the summary judgment motion. (Dkt. 160 at ECF p. 1.) Plaintiff explains that he "abided" by the Court's prior order and was in contact with NYLAG attorney James D. Taylor. Id. at ECF p. 2. However, "[d]espite multiple attempts from NYLAG to contact and assist plaintiff," Mr. Taylor was "hindered" from assisting him due to "unconstitutional prison conditions." Id.1 On that basis, plaintiff renews his request for appointment of pro bono counsel.

Id. at ECF pp. 2-3. In the same letter, plaintiff includes a screenshot from a surveillance video, date-stamped August 31, 2020, noting, in his view, that it supports his case. Id. at ECF p. 6. Pro Bono Counsel In civil cases like this one (unlike criminal cases), there is no requirement that courts supply indigent litigants with counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, the courts have "broad discretion" when deciding whether to seek pro bono representation for a

1 On May 30, 2024, plaintiff advised the Court that he had been moved from the Five Points Correctional Facility to the Wende Correctional Facility. (Dkt. 156.). It is not clear from plaintiff's letters whether he encountered the allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions at Five Points or at Wende. civil litigant. Id. Even if a court does believe that a litigant should have a lawyer, it has no authority to "appoint" counsel, but instead, may only "request," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), that an attorney volunteer represent that litigant. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10 (1989). Moreover, courts do not have funds to pay counsel in civil matters. Courts must therefore request the services of pro bono counsel sparingly, in order to preserve the "precious

commodity" of volunteer-lawyer time for the cases in which representation is most crucial. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172-73 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). In determining whether to grant an application 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, 877 F.2d at 172. As a threshold matter, plaintiff must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61.

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

Related

Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodriguez v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2025.