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.

Mines v. City of New York/Dhs

United States District Court, Second Circuit

May 1, 2013

SYLVIA MINES, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK/DHS, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.

The Court has received the attached letter from the plaintiff, which it forwards to the parties.

The plaintiff requests that the Court appoint her counsel. However, from the papers provided, the Court cannot determine whether the necessary showing for appointment of counsel has been met. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated factors that should guide the Court's discretion to appoint counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915. See Hodge v. Police Officers , 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the petitioner must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that her claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See id. at 60-61. Only then can the Court consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: "plaintiff's ability to obtain representation independently, and [her] ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual investigation, the complexity of the legal issues, and the need for expertly conducted cross-examination to test veracity." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc. , 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). The plaintiff has not yet made such a showing. The plaintiff's application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time.

The plaintiff has also requested additional time to retain an attorney however, the plaintiff has already been granted one extension. By Order dated April 29, 2013, the Court extended the time for the plaintiff to submit additional materials in support of her opposition to the defendant's motion to May 10, 2013. Furthermore, the plaintiff has already submitted materials in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff's time to submit additional materials is extended to May 24, 2013. The defendant's time to reply is extended to June 7, 2013.

SO ORDERED.


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.