Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I `?“" "f"!`*
I ~ · in Case 3:03-cv-00678-AWT D0cument6 Filed 12/10/2003 Page10f2 I
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT {paw [IIN I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 3 d`.U I A _L E
me xt; 1;; 1 U E ""° L
JOSE RAMOS ..-r 2;.:sQR.,gE<2¤” I
PRISONER mm;} in
V CASE NO. 3:03C’x/*678 (ANT) (DPM)
WARDEN ACOSTA, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL é
The plaintiff is seeking an appointment of prg bggg counsel Q
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Second Circuit has made clear
that before an appointment is even considered, the indigent person
must demonstrate that he is unable to obtain counsel. See Hodge v.
Eglice Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986), cert; denied, 502
U.S. 996 (1991). The plaintiff states that sent out over fifteen I
letters to attorneys. He refers the court to letters he has
attached to his motion. No letters are attached to the motion.
The plaintiff’s undocumented attempts to secure legal assistance
are insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff is unable to I
find counsel on his own. The possibility that the plaintiff may be i
able to secure counsel or legal assistance independently precludes
appointment of counsel by the court at this time. Accordingly, the
plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [doc. #5] is DENIED
without prejudice. Any renewal of this motion shall include the
name and address of each attorney or legal organization contacted,
the date on which counsel or the legal organization was contacted
)
I———--——·#mr········”*·“·“···*—······""""""“‘"‘"‘"""""“‘T“”””””'””””"""*““““'““'“"

I
l hl L Case 3:03-cv-00678-AWT D0cument6 Fi|ed12/10/2003 Page20f2
\
and the reasons why assistance was unavailable.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of Dece er, 2003 t Hartford,
Connecticut.
E I · E i
0 jenna F. Mairtineav
United States Magistrate Judge
i
i
i
I
i