MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.
The Court has received the attached correspondence from the plaintiff. By the attached order dated May 28, 2013, this Court granted the plaintiff's request to extend the deadlines in the April 23, 2013 Civil Scheduling Order by 30 days. Accordingly, the revised schedule is as follows:
Discovery: Except for good cause shown, all discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by October 20, 2013. The Court expects discovery to be completed within 60 days of the first scheduling conference unless, after the expiration of that 60 day period, all counsel stipulate that additional time (not to exceed 60 more days) is needed to complete discovery. The expert disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2) shall be made at least 30 days before the completion of discovery.
Dispositive Motions:[*] Dispositive motions, if any, are to be completed by November 11, 2013. The parties are advised to comply with the Court=s Individual Practice 2(B) regarding motions, and to submit one fully briefed set of courtesy copies to the Court.
Pretrial Order/Motions in Limine:[*] A joint pretrial order, together with any motions in limine or motions to bifurcate, shall be submitted by December 6, 2013. The pretrial order shall conform to the Court's Form Joint Pretrial Order, a copy of which may be obtained from the Deputy Clerk.
Trial:[*] The parties shall be ready for trial on 48 hours notice on or after January 3, 2013. The estimated trial time is 4 days, and this a jury trial.
The plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The application to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing. 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. § 1915. See Hodge v. Police Officers , 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986); Jackson v. Moscicki, No. 99 Civ. 2427 (JGK) , 2000 WL 511642, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2000). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that her claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge , 802 F.2d 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 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 Court has received the attached correspondence from the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks a 30-day extension of the deadlines in the April 24, 2013 scheduling order because he did not receive the April 24, 2013 scheduling order despite his diligent efforts. The plaintiff's request is granted. Accordingly, all dates in the April 24, 2013 scheduling order are extended by 30 days.
With all due respect, I am the above Plaintiff in this ongoing civil matter. I'm writing you once again because I wrote you a letter dated May 23, 2013, requesting a 30 day extension for my case scheduling order. However, I never received a response from the court or the defendants in this matter. Secondly, I would like to inform the court that I was scheduled for a settlement hearing in June 2013. I arrived at court on time and waited for over an hour outside the court room and finally I asked the clerk's office about my status and I was informed from the clerk's office that my case hearing was rescheduled. I have not received notice of why the hearing was rescheduled. As of this day, I still have not received ...