Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections et al, No. 1:2018cv11827 - Document 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The plaintiff's application to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing, and as further set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the Court to order the appointm ent of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the 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 determinatio n of whether counsel should be appointed: "plaintiff'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 iss ues, 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 in this case. The plaintiff's application for the Cou rt to appoint counsel is therefore denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 23. SO ORDERED. re: 23 APPLICATION for the Court to Request Counsel filed by Chafik Hassane. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/5/2019) (rjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hassane v. New York City Department of Corrections et al Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHAFIK HASSANE, 18cv11827 (JGK) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - against NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al., Defendants. JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge: The plaintiff’s 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); SEC v. Penn, No. 14-cv-0581, 2017 WL 5508779, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan 24, 2017). For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the 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 his ability to handle the case without assistance in the light of the required factual 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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 in this case. 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 Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 23. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York November 5, 2019 __________/s/________________ John G. Koeltl United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
