Williams v. New York State

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALEXANDER WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL -against- 24-CV-04285 (PMH) NEW YORK STATE, et al.,

Defendants. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Alexander Williams, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, commenced this action on May 31, 2024, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. On January 6, 2025, the Court granted Defendants leave to move to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 36). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on February 5, 2025. (Docs. 39-41). On February 25, 2025, the Court, in accordance with Plaintiff’s request, construed Plaintiff’s pre-motion letter (Doc. 37) as his opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. 43). Defendants filed their reply on March 12, 2025. (Doc. 46). Defendants’ motion to dismiss is sub judice. On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff’s application requesting that the Court appoint pro bono counsel was docketed. (Doc. 54). Plaintiff requests the appointment of pro bono counsel at this juncture because, among other things, this matter is “somewhat complex,” and Plaintiff is currently working on a separate, “post conviction matter.” (Id.). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hodge v. Police Officers, set forth the factors a court should consider in deciding whether to grant a litigant’s request for pro bono counsel. 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). Applying the Hodge factors, the Court cannot determine at this point whether Plaintiff’s claims are “likely to be of substance.” Id. at 61-62. The Court similarly finds that the other Hodge factors weigh against granting Plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff has not shown (1) that he is unable to investigate the crucial facts or present his case, (2) that cross-examination “will be the major proof presented to the fact finder,” (3) that this matter will involve complex legal issues, or (4) why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination herein. /d. Though Plaintiff does not possess legal training, “lack of legal knowledge, without more, does not provide sufficient basis to appoint counsel.” Tramun vy. Ocasio, No. 11-CV-06061, 2012 WL 1142452, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2012). Here, Plaintiff's claims “are not so complex or unique that a person of Plaintiff's intelligence would be unable to handle them at this stage.” Greenland v. Municipality of Westchester Cnty., No. 18-CV-03157, 2020 WL 4505507, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2020) (cleaned up). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for the appointment of pro bono counsel 1s denied without prejudice to renewal later in the case. 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).

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York Tune 17, 2025 Gy PHILIPM.HALPERN = =————<“—s—CS United States District Judge