Seymore v. Department of Corr. Services et al, No. 1:2011cv02254 - Document 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The plaintiff has made another application to appoint counsel. This motion is denied without prejudice for failure to make the required showing. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated factors that sh ould guide the Courts 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. 99Civ. 2427, 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 the claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 60-61. Only then can the Cou rt consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: plaintiffs 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). As in his previous motions, the plaintiff has not made any showing that his claim is likely to succeed on the merits. The plaintiffs application for the Court to appoint counsel is therefore deniedwithout prejudice for failure to make the required showing at this time. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 11/15/2013) (djc) Modified on 11/15/2013 (djc).