Washington-Steele v. City of New York

S.D. New York

Washington-Steele v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 22, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-07431·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DOCUMENT LY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONIC AL ZAHMEIL D. WASHINGTON-STEELE, | i puro: 1224 _| Plaintiff, ee v. 18-CV-7431 (RA) NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT; ORDER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT; NORMAN P. BOCK, ESQ., Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging several violations of his constitutional rights. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's November 11, 2019 letter requesting that the Court appoint Plaintiff pro bono counsel. In determining whether to grant an application for pro bono counsel, the Court must consider a number of factors including: the merits of Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel and Plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). As a threshold matter, in order to qualify for appointment of counsel Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). In addition, the Court must be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity, and thus, should not grant appointment of counsel indiscriminately. Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because the Court cannot compel attorneys to take on civil cases pro bono, and because it does not have the resources to pay counsel in civil matters, the granting of an application for pro bono counsel is a

rare event. See Colon-Reyes v. Fegs Health and Human Servs. Sys., No. 12-CV-2223 (CM), 2012 WL 2353732, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012). Having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that a more fully developed record is necessary before it can determine whether Plaintiffs chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date if additional grounds for the application are presented to the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2019 New York, New York RO 5 ABRAMS United States District Judge

Le Wilde

wame: Zahmeil taashing ~5 le v. City de New * Ket Do: 1¥-Gv- OF43) Ronnie ABrams ee Stewart D. Anon

PRO SE OFFICE| Your Horror, Zahmei) Washinglns ~Sleele te Plas □□□□□ S ques] Hr fhe conte assiqn ON ReqaarcAivsg muy Bo thes my viqhts preretdcd Please and Haste espcedully Sub mite oboe lf

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DOCUMENT LY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONIC AL ZAHMEIL D. WASHINGTON-STEELE, | i puro: 1224 _| Plaintiff, ee v. 18-CV-7431 (RA) NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT; ORDER NEW YORK SUPREME COURT; NORMAN P. BOCK, ESQ., Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging several violations of his constitutional rights. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's November 11, 2019 letter requesting that the Court appoint Plaintiff pro bono counsel. In determining whether to grant an application for pro bono counsel, the Court must consider a number of factors including: the merits of Plaintiff's case, Plaintiff's ability to pay for private counsel, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel and Plaintiff's ability to gather the facts and deal with the issues if unassisted by counsel. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). As a threshold matter, in order to qualify for appointment of counsel Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claim has substance or a likelihood of success. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986). In addition, the Court must be cognizant of the fact that volunteer attorney time is a precious commodity, and thus, should not grant appointment of counsel indiscriminately. Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172. Because the Court cannot compel attorneys to take on civil cases pro bono, and because it does not have the resources to pay counsel in civil matters, the granting of an application for pro bono counsel is a

rare event. See Colon-Reyes v. Fegs Health and Human Servs. Sys., No. 12-CV-2223 (CM), 2012 WL 2353732, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012). Having reviewed Plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that a more fully developed record is necessary before it can determine whether Plaintiffs chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal at a later date if additional grounds for the application are presented to the Court. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2019 New York, New York RO 5 ABRAMS United States District Judge

Le Wilde

wame: Zahmeil taashing ~5 le v. City de New * Ket Do: 1¥-Gv- OF43) Ronnie ABrams ee Stewart D. Anon

PRO SE OFFICE| Your Horror, Zahmei) Washinglns ~Sleele te Plas □□□□□ S ques] Hr fhe conte assiqn ON ReqaarcAivsg muy Bo thes my viqhts preretdcd Please and Haste espcedully Sub mite oboe lf

Washington-Steele v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Washington-Steele v. City of New York (Washington-Steele v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related