Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00897
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DONNA E. SZLOSEK,

Plaintiff,

– against – ORDER 24-cv-00897 (ER) NYS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendant.

Ramos, D.J.: On February 14, 2025, Donna E. Szlosek filed a third application requesting that pro bono counsel represent her in this action. Doc. 36. As stated in the Court’s June 26, 2024 order, Doc. 18, the factors to be considered in ruling on an indigent litigant’s request for counsel include the merits of the case and the plaintiff’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 296 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing factors set forth in Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60– 62). Of these, the Court must “first determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and, if this threshold requirement is met, then the Court must consider additional factors, including the pro se litigant’s “ability to handle the case without assistance,” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392. At this stage in the proceedings, the Court remains unable to conclude that Szlosek’s claims are likely to have merit, although naturally that may change as the litigation progresses. Accordingly, for the same reasons relied upon in the Court’s previous orders, Docs. 18 and 26, Szlosek’s application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later stage in the case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 36.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2025 } ( New York, New York KO ia Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J