UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ASKEW, Plaintiff, —against— 15 Civ. 7496 (PED) LINDSEY, ET AL,, ORDER GRANTING PRO BONO COUNSEL Defendant. PAUL E, DAVISON, U.S.MLJ.: On January 5, 2016, plaintiff (who has been proceeding pro se) moved for the appointment of pro bono counsel. [Dkt. 13.] On March 31, 2016, the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice, observing that plaintiff “may renew his request” if “circumstances change materially[.]” [Dkt. 40.] The parties subsequently consented to my jurisdiction for all purposes. [Dkt. 93.] The trial of this action is now scheduled to proceed on April 20, 2020, Acting sua sponte, the Court finds that the prospect of a jury trial is a changed circumstance, and that the participation of counsel learned in the law and the rules of the Court will likely lead to a more just determination of this action. See Hodge v. Police Officers,

(2d Cir, 1986), Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff at the upcoming trial. The Court advises plaintiff that there are no funds available to retain counsel in civil cases and that the Court relies on volunteers. Ifan attorney volunteers, the attorney will contact plaintiff directly. There is no guarantee, however, that a volunteer attorney will decide to take the case, so plaintiff should remain prepared to proceed to trial without an attorney.

'The Court notes that, under the Court’s Standing Order regarding the Creation and Administration of the Pro Bono Fund (16-MC-0078), pro bone counsel may apply to the Court for reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses spent in furtherance of plaintiff's case. The Pro Bono Fund is especially intended for attorneys for whom pro dono service is a financial hardship,

we, □ BBO pfs lid eyes m 8 $245 reareon (ty eae bg ranted 2 5 ee

Dated: December 5, 2019 White Plains, New York gpietettataa *ssl “SO ORDE A we ot

United States Magistrate Judge