Taylor v. Trigeno

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 3/18/2024 ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : ROY JOAQUIN TAYLOR, : : Plaintiff, : 1:16-cv-01143-GHW : -v- : ORDER : CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Roy Joaquin Taylor requests that the Court appoint a pro bono attorney, specifically “Keven Kreindler,” in various cases brought by Plaintiff for the purposes of representing Plaintiff in settlement discussions. Dkt. No. 295. The request is denied. Unlike in a criminal case, Plaintiff is not entitled to a court-appointed attorney in a civil case. As the Court previously noted, a court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” Dkt. No. 289 (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)). At Plaintiff’s request, the Court requested pro bono counsel for the purposes of settlement discussions in this case. Id. Attorney Kevin Mahoney, from the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, entered an appearance in this matter as a pro bono attorney for Plaintiff for the limited purposes of settlement discussions. Mr. Mahoney may voluntarily choose to represent Plaintiff in other matters, but the Court is not empowered to force Mr. Mahoney to do so—particularly given that Plaintiff’s request is to appoint Mr. Mahoney as counsel in cases not before this Court. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP 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 and the order at Dkt. No. 289 to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2024 New York, New York f : Ms li Owe GREG: . WOODS United States District Judge