Chepilko v. Police Officer Scott Henry

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Ep: 08/28/2023 Sergei Chepilko, DATE FILED: _08/28/2023 Plaintiff, 1:18-cv-02195 (SDA) -against- ORDER The City of New York et al., Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Following a telephone conference with the parties and for the reasons stated below, the Court hereby appoints counsel to represent the pro se Plaintiff at the upcoming jury trial in this case.

The in forma pauperis statute provides that the courts “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Unlike in criminal cases, in civil cases, there is no requirement that courts supply indigent litigants with counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, the courts have “broad discretion” when deciding whether to seek pro bono representation for a civil litigant. id. Even if a court does believe that a litigant should have a free lawyer, under the in forma pauperis statute, a court has no authority to “appoint” counsel, but instead, may only “request” that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of lowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-10 (1989).

After considering the relevant factors, see Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel in the context of the specific circumstances of this case at this juncture is appropriate, and such appointment will facilitate Plaintiff’s ability to deal with the complexities of potential motions, as well as trial. Thus, the Court respectfully directs that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent Plaintiff by placing this case on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court’s pro bono panel.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2023 New York, New York A XL, | J Gar STEWART D. AARON United States Magistrate Judge