UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CLINT EDWARDS, Plaintiff, -against- ORDER Z. TROTTER, C. MAXY, 8. KNOWLES, 24 Civ. 02125 (NSR)JICM) EBONY PINO, AND C. BENNETT, Defendants. eee eee ee eee ee eee nnn Presently before the Court is pro se plaintiff Clint Edwards’ (“Plaintiff”) application for the appointment of pro bono counsel. (Docket No. 79). For the reasons sct forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff : request with leave to renew should circumstances change. Although there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, the Court has the authority to appoint an attorney for any person unable to afford counsel. See

(e)(1). However, “[b]road discretion lies with the district judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel pursuant to this provision.” Hodge v. Police Officers,

(2d Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The Court should undertake a two-step inquiry in analyzing whether appointment of counsel is appropriate. See Ferrelli vy. River Manor Health Care Ctr.,

(2d Cir. 2003). First, the Court should “determine whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance.” Jd. (quoting Hodge,

). Second, the Court should consider other factors such as Plaintiff's “ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented [to the fact finder], the indigent’s ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason... . why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a

just determination.” Ferrelli,

-04 (quoting Hodge,

). As the Court “does not have a panel of attorneys who can be compelled to take on civil cases pro bono, and does not have the resources to pay counsel in civil matters, the appointment of counsel is a

rare event.” Ramey v. Dep’t of Corr. (NYDOCS), No. 13-Civ-17 (CM),

, at *1 (S.D.N-Y. May 2, 2013).! ‘This is Plaintiff's first application for the appointment of pre bono counsel in this matter. Upon review of the record, the Court notes that Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 22, 2024. (Docket No. 5). Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is indigent and cannot afford counsel. See Martinson v. U.S. Parole Comm ‘n, No. 02 Civ. 4913 (DLC)(DE),

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2004), The Court further assumes for the

purposes of this application that Plaintiff's claims may have merit. The Court has reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff's current application for appointment of counsel, and considered the type and complexity of this case, as well as Plaintiff's ability to represent himself. Based on this review, the Court determines there are no complex issues involved. In addition, Plaintiff has independently filed the Complaint, (Docket No. 1), an Amended Complaint, (Docket No. 12), a request to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), and several letters to the Court regarding discovery, (see, e.g., Docket Nos. 72, 76). He has also reached out to attorneys while in custody, but “none of them were willing to

take his case.” (Docket No. 79 at 2). Further, discovery is scheduled to be completed on November 7, 2025, and Plaintiff has already proceeded without an attorney through practically

| If Plaintiff does not have access to cases cited herein that are available only by electronic database, then he may request copies from Defendants’ counsel. See Local Civ. R. 7.2 (“Upon request, counsel shall provide the pro se litigant with copies of such unpublished cases and other authorities as are cited in a decision of the Court and were not previously cited by any party.”).

the entire discovery process. Thus, he has shown an ability to represent himself, Accordingly, Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew should circumstances change, See Ramey,

, at *1-2. Dated: October 29, 2025 White Plains, New York

SO ORDERED:

se : Gg OL C Metot< ey of) Ca □□ JUDITH C. McCARTHY □□ United States Magistrate Judge