The opinion
USDC SDNY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
CARL BROWN, DATE FILED: 7/14/2025
Plaintiff, 19-ev-2296 (NSR)
-against- MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ANTHONY ANNUCCTI, et al.,
Defendants.
NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Carl Brown (“Plaintiff”), by application dated June 30, 2025, seeks
appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 292.)
Unlike in criminal proceedings, the Court does not have the power to obligate attorneys to
represent indigent pro se litigants in civil cases. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of
Towa, 490 U.S. 296, 308-09 (1989). Instead, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court may,
at its discretion, order that the Pro Se Office request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant
by placing the matter on a list circulated to attorneys who are members of the Court’s pro bono
panel. See Palacio v. City of New York, 489 F. Supp. 2d 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
The Second Circuit set forth the standards governing the appointment of counsel in pro se
cases 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, 60-62 (2d Cir. 1986).
These cases direct the district courts to “first determine whether the indigent’s position seems
likely to be of substance,” Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61, and then, if this threshold is met, to consider
“secondary criteria,” including the pro se litigant’s “ability to obtain representation independently,
and his 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, 877 F.2d at 172; accord Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392 (quoting Hodge, 802 F.2d
at 61–62). “Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the
indigent’s chances of success are extremely slim,” and the Court should determine whether the pro
se litigant’s “position seems likely to be of substance,” or shows “some chance of success.”
Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61.
The proceedings are still in their early stages, and the parties have yet to enter discovery or
make summary judgment motions. Thus, the Court is unable to conclude that pro se Plaintiff
cannot handle the case without assistance, although this conclusion may change as the action
progresses. Furthermore, the Court still cannot ascertain whether pro se Plaintiff’s position shows
a strong chance of success, nor are the legal issues in this case particularly complex.
Therefore, because the Court does not find any circumstances which warrant the
appointment of pro bono counsel at this time, pro se Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without
prejudice to renew at a later stage in the proceedings. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
terminate the motion at ECF No. 292, to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at his address
as listed on ECF and to show service on the docket.
Dated: July 14, 2025 SO ORDERED:
White Plains, New York
________________________________
NELSON S. ROMÁN
United States District Judge