Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RODRIGUEZ v. TRUSTEES

May 14, 2004.

ADA RODRIGUEZ, MARLENE BETANCOURT, RAFAEL FUERTES VARGAS, and ALBERTO BETANCOURT, and all others similarly situated or affected, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a/k/a COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DEBRA FREEMAN, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In this putative class action, commenced by pro se plaintiffs Ada Rodriguez, Marlene Betancourt, Rafael Fuertes Vargas, and Alberto Betancourt (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), Plaintiffs move to proceed in forma pauperis and to have the Court request pro bono counsel to represent them. For the reasons discussed below, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, although, at this time, the Court directs that the pleadings only be served upon certain named defendants, as set forth below. Plaintiffs' application for counsel is denied without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

  In this action, brought under numerous provisions of the federal and New York state constitutions and various civil rights statutes, Plaintiffs, who describe themselves as constituting a "minority famil[y] of Hispanic and low income background" (Complaint ("Compl."), dated May 27, 2003 (Dkt. 1) ¶ 233), essentially complain that Columbia University, as their landlord, in taking steps to convert the building in which they reside to institutional use and thereby evict them from their home, has violated various laws and discriminated against them based on their minority status (see, e.g., id. ¶ 236, 240-45). Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other minority families similarly facing allegedly unlawful eviction.

  Plaintiffs assert that they cannot afford to prosecute this case without at least some assistance. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that, given the length of the Complaint (which consists of 799 numbered paragraphs in 301 pages, plus more than 300 additional pages of attached exhibits), they cannot afford to make sufficient copies of it to be served on the named defendants. Further, having named as defendants 53 private or governmental entities or individuals, plus a number of "John Does," Plaintiffs maintain that, unless they are granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and thus receive the assistance of the United States Marshal in effectuating service of process, they will be unable, through lack of resources, to serve the Complaint on all defendants and proceed with this case. In a joint submission, each of the Plaintiffs has separately submitted a signed "Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" setting forth the details of his or her financial situation. ((See Dkt. 5.)

  Plaintiffs further state that, although one of them, Alberto Betancourt, has been studying the law on his own for some time, he has never attended law school, is not an attorney, and is not sufficiently familiar with the areas of law implicated in this case to enable him to assist his family effectively in pursuing this matter without counsel. (See Supplemental Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and for Assigned Counsel ("Supp. Decl."), dated October 22, 2003 (Dkt. 6) at 3.) Plaintiffs assert that they have made substantial efforts to obtain counsel, but have been unsuccessful. (Id. at 1-2.) Stating that they do not have the "ecomonic, political and legal means and familiarity with the law required to prosecute a case of this magnitude on their own," Plaintiffs ask that the Court request pro bono counsel to represent them. (Id. at 2.)

  DISCUSSION

  I. PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

  Although Plaintiffs have already paid the filing fee necessary to commence this action (see Dkt. 1), they have nonetheless requested that the Court grant them in forma pauperis status so that the United States Marshal may help them effectuate service. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may grant in forma pauperis status where a plaintiff has submitted an affidavit detailing his or her financial situation, as well as the nature of the action and the affiant's belief that he or she is entitled to relief.

  In this case, the Court has received affidavits from plaintiffs Ada Rodriquez, Marlene Betancourt, Rafael Fuertes Vargas, and Alberto Betancourt, detailing the limited income each has received in the last year, their monthly rent and other financial obligations, and special hardship circumstances that have rendered them "economically impoverished." (See Requests to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed October 15, 2003 (Dkt. 5).) In addition, Plaintiffs have submitted a supplemental declaration, detailing additional reasons for granting them in forma pauperis statuts. (See Supp. Decl.) As Plaintiffs' showings are sufficient to demonstrate that they are indigent, their application to proceed in this case in forma pauperis is granted, although, since Plaintiffs have already paid the filing fee, the application is granted only for the purpose of permitting them to obtain the assistance of the United States Marshal in serving the Complaint on the defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (where plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, "[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process"); see also, e.g., Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 436 (2d Cir. 1998) (where application of pro se plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis had been granted, Clerk was ordered to forward the summons and complaint to the United States Marshal for proper service).

  The Court notes, however, that, just as it would pose a burden for Plaintiffs to have to copy and serve their overly-voluminous Complaint*fn1 on all of the many named defendants, so too would this burden the Marshal. Based on the Court's rough calculation, if enough copies of the Complaint were made to serve all named defendants, and if those copies were stacked in a pile, the pile would contain approximately 32,000 pages and would stand about 13 feet high. Further, individualized service on each defendant may not be necessary in this case. Defendant Columbia University, for example, may well be willing to accept service on behalf of its Trustees (all of whom are separately named as defendants), which would obviate the need for the Marshal's office to locate and serve each Trustee individually. Plaintiffs have also named as defendants numerous federal, state and local agencies, and it may not be necessary to serve each of those defendants separately, if the United States Attorney's Office, the New York State Attorney General's Office, and the office of the New York City Corporation Counsel were to consent to accept service on their behalf.

  Accordingly, at this time, Plaintiffs may seek the assistance of the United States Marshal only with respect to service of the Summons and Complaint on: (1) Columbia University, (2) the United States Attorney's Office, (3) the New York State Attorney General's Office, and (4) the Office of the New York City Corporation Counsel.

  II. PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR COUNSEL

  A case may not proceed as a class action if plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. See, e.g., McCleod v. Crosson, No, 89 Civ. 1952 (CSH), 1989 WL 28416, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 1989) ("It is well established in this circuit that pro se plaintiffs cannot act as class representatives. They do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4)."). Nor will this Court entertain an application for the appointment of class counsel. In the situation presented, however, the Court will deem Plaintiffs' application as a request for the Court to seek pro bono counsel to represent them on an individual basis, and will consider the application in that light. See, e.g., Devlin v. Transportation Communications Int'l Union, No. 95 Civ.0754 (JFK), 2002 WL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.