Scott v. Annucci

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------x DAVID LOUIME,

Plaintiff, ORDER

- against - No. 23-CV-6898 (CS)

ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al.,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x This Order relates to: Louime v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6898 Campbell v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6900 Brooks v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6902 Roque v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6906 Scott v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6911 Reed v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6918 Haymon v. Annucci, et al., No. 23-CV-6922 Seibel, J. Plaintiffs in each of the above-captioned cases filed motions requesting pro bono counsel. The factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case, their efforts to obtain a lawyer, and their ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989); Hodges v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Of these factors, the merits are “[t]he factor which command[s] the most attention.” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because it is too early for the Court to assess the merits in all of the above-captioned cases, Plaintiffs’ motions for counsel are denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate those pending motions in each of the above-captioned cases and to docket this Order in each of the above-captioned cases.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2024 White Plains, New York

RE AaiteR CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.