Harriram v. Fera ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E DL OE CC #:T RONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 10/25/2021 PRIYA HARRIRAM, Plaintiff, 21-CV-3696 (RA) v. ORDER JOSEPH LUIS FERA AND LEHMAN COLLEGE, Defendants. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s letter of October 18, 2021, renewing her application for the court to request pro bono counsel to represent her in this action. Dkt. 27. As noted in the Court’s previous order denying Plaintiff’s first request for pro bono representation, Dkt. 22, there is no requirement in civil cases that courts appoint counsel to a litigant who cannot afford a lawyer. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). In considering whether to grant an indigent litigant’s request for pro bono counsel, a district court considers the merits of the case, the litigant’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the litigant’s ability to gather the facts and present the case if unassisted by counsel. See Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Although in her renewed request Plaintiff notes that she has contacted the New York Legal Assistance Group’s pro se clinic, the Court is in no better position to assess the merits of her action. As explained in the application itself, requests for pro bono counsel are very rarely granted before the Court has issued a decision on the merits of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second request for pro bono counsel, Dkt. 27, is denied without prejudice. This means that Plaintiff may make the application again at a later point in the case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. 27 and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2021 New York, New York Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge