SMITH v. FISCHER

No. 13-CV-6127-FPG.

JEREMIE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN S. FISCHER et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jeremie Smith, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

M. F. Thoms, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Daniel Weinstock, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Jacob Widroff, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Thomas A. Schlee, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Irene Dadson, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Gary Sullivan, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

N. P. Salotti, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Robert D. Jansen, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Kim Cheasman, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

D. Carroll, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Gardner, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

N. Leone, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

J. Springer, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

B. Jones, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Bailey, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

Sgt. W. Woodard, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

C.O. R. Casper, Capacity, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

C.O. D. Filighera, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.

C.O. Mosko, Defendant, represented by Hillel David Deutsch , NYS Attorney General's Office.


DECISION AND ORDER

FRANK P. GERACI, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Jeremie Smith's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 50) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (ECF No. 57), which Defendants have since asked the Court to hold in abeyance (ECF No. 63). The Court will address these issues in turn below.

I. Appointment of Counsel

On May 4, 2017, Plaintiff moved to appoint counsel. ECF No. 50.1 Plaintiff asserts that the Court should appoint him counsel because he is a "pro se litigant" who is "not versed in civil law" and because it is "very difficult . . . to properly litigate [this] case by [him]self." Id. at 7.

There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases, although the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988). The Court must carefully consider whether to appoint counsel, because "every assignment of a volunteer lawyer deprives society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). The Court must consider several factors, including whether the indigent's claims seem likely to be of substance; the indigent's ability to investigate the crucial facts; whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder; the indigent's ability to present the case; the complexity of the legal issues; and any special reason why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination. See Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986).

After considering these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. It is unclear whether Plaintiff's claims are likely to be of substance. Additionally, his voluminous submissions to the Court have been well written and articulate, and he appears able to present his own claims adequately. Moreover, there are no special reasons that would favor the appointment of counsel at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 50) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to either retain counsel or to continue with this action pro se.

II. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

On June 20, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) due to Plaintiff's failure to appear for a scheduled deposition. ECF No. 57. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff responded in opposition to Defendants' motion and alleged that he did not receive written notice informing him of the deposition date and therefore was unaware that a deposition was scheduled. ECF No. 61. Thus, on August 8, 2017, Defendants rescheduled the deposition for September 7, 2017 and requested that the Court hold their motion to dismiss in abeyance until September 8, 2017. ECF No. 63.

In light of the above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 57) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court denied Plaintiff's previous motion to appoint counsel that he filed on September 19, 2016. ECF Nos. 46, 47.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases