Vann v. Sudranski et al, No. 7:2016cv07367 - Document 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER denying without prejudice 171 Application for the Court to Request Counsel. The Court has received from plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the attached motion, dated June 11, 2020, requesting appointment of pro bo no counsel (Doc.#171). The is plaintiffs fourth request for appointment of pro bono counsel. (See Docs. ##5, 59, 140). In the instant motion, plaintiff states this case presents "several different" and "complex" legal claims, an d requires "discovery of documents and depositions." (See Doc. #171 at ECF 2). Plaintiffs request for the appointment of pro bono counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As an initial matter, discovery has been complete for over a year. (See Docs. ##135, 139). Accordingly, plaintiffs request for pro bono counsel because this case requires discovery of documents and depositions is without merit. ' Secondly, on June 4, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in defendants' favor on plaintiffs Eighth Amendment sexual abuse claim against C.O. Sudranski, as well as plaintiffs Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to intervene claims against Lt. Hann. (See Doc. #170). Plaintiffs only claim that survived summary judgment is his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C.O. Sudranski. (Id.). Accordingly, plaintiff currently does not have "several different" and complex legal claims that require adjudication. (Se e Doc. #171 at ECF 2). Thirdly, the Court denied without prejudice plaintiffs three prior motions for, appointment of pro bono counsel. (See Docs. ##10, 60, 141). At those times, having considered the type and complexity of this case, the merits o f plaintiffs claims, and plaintiffs ability to present his case, the Court did not find any exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. Again, the Court has considered the type and complexity of this case, the merits of plaintiffs remaining claim, and plaintiffs ability to present the case. At this time, and again, the Court does not find any exceptional circumstances in plaintiffs case that would warrant the appointment of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cooper v . A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). In fact, plaintiff consistently has demonstrated his ability to present this case. The Clerk is directed to terminate plaintiffs motion. (Doc. #171). Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 6/17/2020) (ks)