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

-~·— —-— — ;—————
‘ I I .. Case 3:03-cv-00618-AVC D0cument16 Filed 04/30/2004 Page10f2
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOU [lm [
’ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
ZUIIII APH 30 P 3= 20
ILES. I]I€TE$TI*I|C`T IZUURT i
JOSE DELVALLE ; §I.;*.I'$lI"FIiI¥iU. C?. I
: PRISONER I
v. : Case No. 3:03CV618(AVC)(TPS) I
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG, et al. ; i
RDLING AND ORDER `
Defendants Seek an extension of time, until May 15, 2004, to i
respond to the complaint. Defendants' motion [doc. #15] is l
GRANTED.
Plaintiff seeks appointment of prg pggg counsel in this action I
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. iFor the reasons set forth below, I
plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice.
The Second. Circuit repeatedly has cautioned the district Y
courts against the routine appointment of counsel. See, e.g., S
Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Cooper v.
A. Sargenti Co., 877 F. 2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). The Second i
Circuit has made clear that before an appointment is even
considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he is unable
to obtain counsel. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d X
Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 996 (1991),
In his motion, plaintiff identifies one law firm that declined I
representation and two others that have not yet responded to his
i inquiries. He does not indicate, however, that he contacted
I
I
I
- . I

$77 7`HPPII I S It A .,.. ,1


f
lr '“ " " Case 3:03-cv-00618-AVC Document16 _Fi|ed 04/30/2004 Page2of2
l
l
E
Inmates' Legal Assistance Program. Based upon the current record, E
the court cannot conclude that plaintiff is unable to obtain legal
assistance on his own.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
. . . . . . J
[doc. #14] is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff should contact `
Inmates' Legal Assistance Program for legal assistance with this g
case. Any future motion for appointment of counsel shall indicate y
why the assistance available from Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program
is inadequate at this stage of litigation.
SO ORDERED this 30* day 'of April, 2004, at Hartford,
Connecticut. ’_ ‘ g__ E
a ` i
Thomas Pin§EHiE;·&—_—*_h—dh___——__ I
United States Magistrate Judge
l
I
I
L

l
............................ ..