Samborsky v. Rothstein

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 6/11/2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------X MICHAEL SAMBORSKY, : : Plaintiff, : -against- : 1:20-cv-00298-GHW : SARA ROTHSTEIN, doing business as 32BJ : ORDER Benefit Funds, ALBERTA GALDRI, doing : business as 32BJ Benefit Funds, and REGINE : BRETON doing business as : 32BJ Benefit Funds, : : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------------X

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Samborsky submitted his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt No. 21. In his opposition, Samborsky renews his request for pro bono counsel. See Dkt No. 10. That application is again denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. There is insufficient information before the Court at this time to make the necessary assessment of plaintiff’s claims under the standards set forth by the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers, including whether plaintiff’s claim is “likely to be of substance.” 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). The Court will address the application after it rules on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Samborsky by first-class and certified mail. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 11, 2020 □ ba Loved — GRE H. WOODS United States District Judge