Stoytchev v. City of Yonkers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GEORGE STOYTCHEV, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 22-cv-8877 (AEK) CITY OF YONKERS, et al., Defendants.

ANDREW E. KRAUSE, United States Magistrate Judge: On November 28, 2023, the Court conducted a settlement conference at which Plaintiff appeared pro se, but no settlement was reached. On December 14, 2023, Defendants’ counsel submitted a letter indicating that the case was trial-ready. See ECF No. 24. The Court subsequently directed Plaintiff to file a letter to, among other things, “indicate whether Plaintiff requests that the Court attempt to locate pro bono counsel to represent him for purposes of trial.”

See ECF No. 25. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a letter in which he requested that the Court help him to obtain pro bono counsel. ECF No. 28. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As explained below, Plaintiff may, under appropriate circumstances, renew his application at a later time.

To justify a request for pro bono counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a litigant must first demonstrate that he or she is unable to afford counsel by, for example, successfully applying for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See Vickers v. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, No. 22- cv-1781 (DEH), 2023 WL 7414674, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2023) (attached); Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335, 1341 (2d Cir. 1994). Plaintiff has not taken this necessary step in this matter. If Plaintiff chooses to do so, he may submit an application to proceed IFP, using the form available at https://www.nysd.uscourts. gov/sites/default/files/2018- 06/IFP-application.pdf. Such application must be filed by February 16, 2024.

If Plaintiff’s IFP application is approved, the Court will then consider Plaintiff’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel without the need to re-file the request. At that point, that Court would then evaluate the factors set forth by the Second Circuit in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). These include whether the plaintiff’s claim “seems likely to be of substance”; the plaintiff’s ability and efforts to obtain counsel; and the plaintiff’s ability to handle the case without the assistance of counsel. /d. at 61-62; see also Cooper v. A.

Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: February 5, 2024 White Plains, New York SO ORDERED: CbSaaur Keann—— ANDREWE.KRAUSE United States Magistrate Judge 2023WL7414674 bono counsel sparingly, and concerning public benefit, to 2023WL7414674 preservethe“preciouscommodityofvolunteer-lawyertime.”

OnlytheWestlawcitationiscurrentlyavailable. Cooperv.A.SargentiCo.,Inc.,877F.2d170,172-73(2dCir.

UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,S.D.NewYork. 1989).

AsiyaVICKERS,Plaintiff, In Hodge, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set v. forththefactorsacourtshouldconsiderindecidingwhether DEPARTMENTOFVETERAN'SAFFAIRS,Defendant. tograntalitigant'srequestforprobonocounsel.802F.2dat 61-62.Thelitigantmustfirstprovethatheorsheisindigent, 22-CV-1781(DEH) for example, by successfully applying for leave to proceed | in forma pauperis. The court must then consider whether SignedOctober30,2023 the litigant's claim “seems likely to be of substance” – “a requirement that must be taken seriously.” Id. at 60-61. If AttorneysandLawFirms these threshold requirements are met, the court must next considersuchfactorsas: AsiyaVickers,NewYork,NY,ProSe.

AmandaM.Lee,DOJ-USAO,NewYork,NY,forDefendant. the indigent's ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting ORDER evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major DALEE.HO,UnitedStatesDistrictJudge: proofpresentedtothefactfinder,the indigent's ability to present the case, *1 Plaintiff has filed an Application for the Court to the complexity of the legal issues[,] Request Pro Bono Counsel for Limited Representation for andanyspecialreasoninthatcasewhy Settlement Negotiations and Depositions. Dkt. No. 54. For appointmentofcounselwouldbemore thefollowingreasons,Plaintiff'sapplicationisdeniedwithout likelytoleadtoajustdetermination. prejudice at this time. As explained below, Plaintiff may, underappropriatecircumstances,renewherapplicationata latertime.

Id.;seealsoCooper,877F.2dat172(listingfactorscourts shouldconsider,includinglitigant'seffortstoobtaincounsel).

LEGALSTANDARD Theinformapauperis(IFP)statuteprovidesthatthecourts DISCUSSION “mayrequestanattorneytorepresentanypersonunableto The Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff's difficulty in affordcounsel.”28U.S.C.§1915(e)(1).Unlikeincriminal obtaining counsel. But Plaintiff has not filed, nor been cases,incivilcases,thereisnorequirementthatcourtssupply granted,aRequesttoProceedinFormaPauperis(IFP).Cf. indigent litigants with counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers, Hodge,802F.2dat61.Therefore,Plaintiffdoesnotqualify 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). Instead, the courts have asindigent.Tojustifyarequestforprobonocounselunder28 “broaddiscretion”whendecidingwhethertoseekprobono U.S.C.§1915(e)(1),thelitigantmustfirstdemonstratethathe representationforacivillitigant.Id.Evenifacourtbelieves orsheisunabletoaffordcounselby,forexample,successfully that a litigant should have a free lawyer, a court has no applyingforleavetoproceedIFP.Travisv.BankofAmerica, authority to “appoint” counsel under the in forma pauperis N.A., 22-CV-2025151, 2023 WL 2025151, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. statute.Instead,acourtmayonly“request”thatanattorney Jan.19,2023);seeTerminateControlCorp.v.Horowitz,28 volunteertorepresentalitigant.Mallardv.U.S.Dist.Court F.3d1335,1341(2dCir. 1994)(thedistrictcourt“mustfirst for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-310 (1989). ascertain whether the litigant is able to afford or otherwise Moreover, courts do not have funds to pay counsel in civil obtaincounsel”). matters. Courts must therefore request the services of pro ©2024ThomsonReuters.NoclaimtooriginalU.S.GovernmentWorks. 1 2023WL7414674 *2 If appropriate, the Plaintiff may apply to proceed in Settlement Negotiations and Depositions is denied without Forma Pauperis (IFP), the form for which is available at: prejudicetoitsrenewal. https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/node/838.IfPlaintiffchooses to do so, and if her application to proceed IFP is granted, The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any Plaintiff may then refile an Application for the Court to appealfromthisOrderwouldnotbetakeningoodfaithand RequestProBonoCounselforLimitedRepresentation. thereforeIFPstatusisdeniedforthepurposeofanappeal.See Coppedgev.UnitedStates,369U.S.438,444-45(1962).

CONCLUSION SOORDERED.

Fortheforegoingreasons,Plaintiff'sApplicationfortheCourt AllCitations toRequestProBonoCounselforLimitedRepresentationfor SlipCopy,2023WL7414674 End of Document © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

©2024ThomsonReuters.NoclaimtooriginalU.S.GovernmentWorks. 2