Opinion
08 Civ. 5263 (JGK).
August 27, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel filed August 13, 2010 is denied at this time without prejudice to renewal.
For the Court to order the appointment of counsel, the plaintiff must, as a threshold matter, demonstrate that the plaintiff's claim has substance or a likelihood of success on the merits. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). Only then can the Court consider the other factors appropriate to determination of whether counsel should be appointed: "plaintiff's ability to obtain representation independently, and his 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).
At this point in the proceedings, the Court denies the plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal because the Court cannot determine based on the record that the plaintiff's claims are substantial or that she is likely to succeed on the merits.
The plaintiff should work with the Pro Se Office of the Court for any additional help that she needs and should also seek to obtain private counsel. The Pro Se Office may be contacted at: Pro Se Office, United States District Court, S.D.N.Y., 500 Pearl St, New York, N.Y. 10007, 212-805-0175.