Myers v. Wigdorski et al, No. 6:2023cv06317 - Document 19 (W.D.N.Y. 2024)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's motions for assignment of counsel (Dkt. #17 in 23-CV-6317 and Dkt. #19 in 23-CV-6503) are denied without prejudice. It is plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with these lawsuits pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 2/20/2024. (KAH)This was mailed to: Plaintiff Nathaniel Myers.

Download PDF
Myers v. Wigdorski et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________ NATHANIEL MYERS, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, -vs23-CV-6317DGL Det. ADAM WIGDORSKI, et al. Defendants. _____________________________________ NATHANIEL MYERS, Plaintiff, -vs- 23-CV-6503DGL KEEFE, et al., Defendants. ______________________________________ Plaintiff, Nathaniel Myers, appearing pro se, filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel in the above captioned actions (Dkt. Nos. 17 and 19, respectively). Plaintiff’s motions are denied. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases. Although the Court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e), see, e.g., Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d Cir. 1988), courts have broad discretion in determining whether such assignments are warranted. In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). Such motions are not to be granted routinely, because Aevery assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a volunteer lawyer available for a deserving Dockets.Justia.com cause.@ Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). In exercising its discretion, then, the court must carefully consider the relevant factors, which include: 1. Whether the indigent=s claims seem likely to be of substance; 2. Whether the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts concerning his claim; 3. Whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the factfinder; 4. Whether the legal issues involved are complex; and 5. Whether there are any special reasons why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination. Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986). Additionally, the Court must consider the Alikelihood of merit@ of the underlying dispute. Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392; Cooper, 877 F.2d at 174. A[E]ven though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be appointed in a case where the merits of the ... claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore poor.@ Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) (denying counsel on appeal where petitioner=s appeal was not frivolous but nevertheless appeared to have little merit). The Court has reviewed the facts presented herein considering the factors required by law. Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to pursue and present his claims. Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of the complaint. See Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392. In short, the proceedings thus far do not indicate a need for appointment of counsel at this time. Plaintiff’s motions for assignment of counsel (Dkt. #17 in 23-CV-6317 and Dkt. #19 in 23-CV-6503) are denied without prejudice. It is plaintiff=s responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with these lawsuits pro se. 28 U.S.C. ' 1654. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________________ DAVID G. LARIMER United States District Judge Dated: Rochester, New York February 20, 2024.

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.