Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Watson, v. Moscicki

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 4, 2010

CHARLES WATSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT RONALD MOSCICKI SUPERINTENDENT, LAKEVIEW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaint if has applied to the Court for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e), the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988 ).

Assignment of counsel in this matter is clearly within the judge's discretion. In re Mart in-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1986 ). The factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to assign counsel include the following:

1. Whet her the indigent's claims seem likely to be of substance;

2. Whet her the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts concerning his claim;

3. Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder;

4. Whet her the legal issues involved are complex; and

5. Whet her there are any special reasons why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.

Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Of ficers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986 ). The Court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because " every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989).

The Court has reviewed the facts presented herein in light of the factors required by law. Plaintiff appears to be an intelligent and capable pro se litigant who so far has done an admirable job of litigating his case.

Accordingly, based on this review, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice at this time. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with this law suit pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. In order to assist plaintiff in pursuing this case pro se, the Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff copies of the Court's bookletent it led Pro Se Litigation Guidelines and the Manual for Inmate Litigants.

SO ORDERED.

20100104

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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