Opinion

Brown v. New York City Human Resources Administration

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Apr 3, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.8%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DESHANAE L. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

– against –

ORDER

NEW YORK CITY HUMAN

No. 23-cv-9113 (ER)

RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION,

MOUSTAPHA BOUKARI, FRANK

AGBI, ASRA HORTON, LAURIE

MOORE, and CANDI RUFUS,

Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff requested that the Court appoint pro bono counsel. Doc.

11.

�e request is denied at this time. Courts do not have the power to obligate attorneys to

represent pro se litigants in civil cases. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490

U.S. 296, 310 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may, in its

discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request that an attorney represent an indigent litigant by

placing the matter on a list that is circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court’s Pro

Bono Panel. Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). �e

standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se cases were set forth by the Court of

Appeals in Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997), Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co.,

877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.

1986). Collectively, these cases stand for the principle that the Court must “first determine

whether the indigent’s position seems likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and, if

this threshold requirement is met, then the Court must consider additional factors including the

pro se litigant’s “ability to handle the case without assistance,” Cooper, 877 F.2d at 172; accord

Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392.

The Court is unable to conclude at this time that Plaintiff’s claims are likely to have merit,

although naturally that may change as the litigation progresses. Accordingly, the application for

the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice to possible renewal at a later

stage in the progress of the case.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 11.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2024 (a

New York, New York

Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.