Xu v. The City University of New York

E.D. New York

Xu v. The City University of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 2025

Docket1:23-cv-09506

StatusUnknown

This text of Xu v. The City University of New York (Xu v. The City University of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xu v. The City University of New York, (E.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X JI XU, ORDER Plaintiff, 23 CV 9506 (RPK)(LB) -against-

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (CUNY), LAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (LAGCC),

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------X BLOOM, United States Magistrate Judge: On March 6, 2025, pro se plaintiff requested pro bono counsel in her discrimination case brought pursuant to Title IX. ECF No. 33. This case arises out of plaintiff’s claim that when she was enrolled in the City University of New York’s LaGuardia Community College Nursing Program, defendants discriminated against her. ECF No. 4. Defendant denies the allegations. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel in a civil case, even for litigants granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer #1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011). Although the Court would prefer all civil litigants to have the assistance of counsel, that is not what the Constitution provides. The Court denied plaintiff’s request because she did not meet and still does not meet the likelihood of merit standard. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (affirming Magistrate Judge’s denial of motion for pro bono counsel where plaintiff’s claims do “not justify using the scarce resource of volunteer lawyers.”) (citing Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this denial. ECF No. 35. The motion is denied. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a basis for this "extraordinary remedy." R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or order is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to…matters…that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362, 377 (2d Cir. 2024). Plaintiff provides no new matter to alter the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff fails to establish a basis for the

Court to request pro bono counsel in this case. SO ORDERED. /S/ LOIS BLOOM United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 13, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X JI XU, ORDER Plaintiff, 23 CV 9506 (RPK)(LB) -against-

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (CUNY), LAGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE (LAGCC),

Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------X BLOOM, United States Magistrate Judge: On March 6, 2025, pro se plaintiff requested pro bono counsel in her discrimination case brought pursuant to Title IX. ECF No. 33. This case arises out of plaintiff’s claim that when she was enrolled in the City University of New York’s LaGuardia Community College Nursing Program, defendants discriminated against her. ECF No. 4. Defendant denies the allegations. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel in a civil case, even for litigants granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer #1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011). Although the Court would prefer all civil litigants to have the assistance of counsel, that is not what the Constitution provides. The Court denied plaintiff’s request because she did not meet and still does not meet the likelihood of merit standard. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (affirming Magistrate Judge’s denial of motion for pro bono counsel where plaintiff’s claims do “not justify using the scarce resource of volunteer lawyers.”) (citing Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this denial. ECF No. 35. The motion is denied. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a basis for this "extraordinary remedy." R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. Mimi So, 640 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or order is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to…matters…that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362, 377 (2d Cir. 2024). Plaintiff provides no new matter to alter the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff fails to establish a basis for the

Court to request pro bono counsel in this case. SO ORDERED. /S/ LOIS BLOOM United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: March 13, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xu v. The City University of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xu-v-the-city-university-of-new-york-nyed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack