Darley v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICHOLAS DARLEY, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING THIRD REQUEST FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL -against- 22-CV-00714 (PMH) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., Defendants.

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed, on October 12, 2023, his third application requested that the Court appoint pro bono counsel. (Doc. 95). Plaintiff’s first request was denied without prejudice because the Court determined, after application of the factors set forth in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986), that Plaintiff’s request for pro bono counsel was premature. (Doc. 12 at 3).

Plaintiff’s second request was denied for the same reasons. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff requests the appointment of pro bono counsel at this juncture “in order to properly complete the discovery process, such as, depositions, getting an expert witness and handling other aspects that are practically impossible for an incarcerated individual to do.” (Doc. 95 at 1).

Applying the Hodge factors, the Court cannot determine at this point whether Plaintiff’s claims are “likely to be of substance.” Hodge, 802 F.2d 61-62. The Court similarly finds that the other Hodge factors weigh against granting Plaintiff’s Second 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. Id. Though Plaintiff asserts that he does not possess legal training to conduct discovery in this action, “lack of legal knowledge, without more, does not provide sufficient basis to appoint counsel.” Tramun v. 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 Plaintiffs intelligence would be unable to handle them at this stage.” Greenland v. Municipality of Westchester Cnty., No. 18-CV-3157, 2020 WL 4505507, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2020) (cleaned up).

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s third request for the appointment of pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal later in the case. Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order.

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 October 24, 2023 United States District Judge SD lee Pe ew Since 1990, NYLAG has provided free civil legal services New York ME Legal Assistance Group to New Yorkers who cannot afford private attorneys.

Free Legal Assistance for Self-Represented Civil Litigants in District Court for the Southern District Of New Yor| NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York is a fre clinic staffed by attorneys, law students and paralegals to assist those who are themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits in the outhern District of New York. The clinic does not provide full representation. The clinic, is not part of or run by the court, assists litigants with federal civil cases including involving civil rights, employment discrimination, labor law, social security benefit: and tax.

Contact the Clinic: (212) 659-6190 or complete our online intake form (found here: A staff member will contact you within a few days.

looking for assistance can also contact the clinic at the kiosk located across the hall the pro se clinic office in the courthouse. this time, the clinic offers remote consultations only. Requests for in- appointments will be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. and Hours: Marshall United States Courthouse Room LL22 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 (212) 659 6190 Open weekdays a.m. — 4 p.m.

Closed on federal and court holidays ii □□□□ □