Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Department of Financial Protection & Innovation
-
Order | Filed: May 13, 2024 | Entered: May 13, 2024 Nijland v. Department of Financial Protection & Innovation, CA
Banks and Banking | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel
ORDER denying 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A plaintiff in a civil case is not entitled to appointment of counsel on request and the Second Circuit repeatedly cautions against the routine appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Insofar as volunteer lawyer time is not always readily available, a plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel must show first that he "sought counsel and has been unable to obtain it." McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1988). Once a plaintiff has made this showing, he must then demonstrate that his complaint passes the test of "likely merit." Cooper, 877 F.2d at 173. He must demonstrate that the claims in the complaint have a sufficient basis to justify appointing a volunteer lawyer to pursue them.
Section 1915(e) provides that the Court may appoint an attorney "to represent any person unable to afford counsel." Moreover, D. Conn. Local Rule 83.10(c) provides that "pro bono counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the presiding judge... based upon factors such as... a partys apparent ability or inability to afford legal counsel." It appears that Plaintiff has the ability to pay for his own counsel. See Jenkins v. Chem. Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 880 (2d Cir. 1983) (explaining that, in considering a Title VII pro se plaintiff's application for pro bono counsel, the court should "assess a plaintiff's ability to afford a private attorney, although the litigant need not be destitute before an appointment is made"). Here, Plaintiff attests that he had a gross salary of $46,200 in the past twelve months, $17,200 in an IRA account, $58,000 in a checking account, and $347,000 in savings. Plaintiff also represents that he does not owe any money to others. See ECF No. 2 at 2. Plaintiff possesses sufficient funds at this time to pay for his own counsel and the necessities of life. See, e.g., Paulini v. City of New York, No. 15-cv7059 (CM), 2016 WL 5946189, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2016) (finding no clear proof that litigant was "indigent" where he made between $1,000 and $2,300 per month driving a cab, had "an old car and no appreciable assets," and owed monthly rent of $1,000). Indeed, "it appears that the main reason for his request for appointment of pro bono counsel is that he has been unable to persuade an attorney to take his case on a contingency basis." Sardarian v. FEMA, No. 3:19-cv-910 (CSH), 2019 WL 8331443, at *4 (D. Conn. June 19, 2019).
Notably, "even where a claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the [plaintiff's] chances of success are extremely slim." Cooper, 877 F.2d at 171. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has sought but has, as of yet, been unable to obtain counsel. However, at this nascent stage of the litigation, the Court cannot ascertain the "likely merit" of Plaintiff's claims and specifically whether his claims are appropriate for class wide adjudication as he posits. The 2 Motion is therefore DENIED.
Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/13/2024. (Chambers, J.) -
Order | Filed: April 30, 2024 | Entered: April 30, 2024 Nijland v. Department of Financial Protection & Innovation, CA
Banks and Banking | Connecticut
Notice Regarding Service
NOTICE REGARDING SERVICE: The self-represented plaintiff shall proceed with service upon the defendant(s) pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may refer to pages 8-11 of the Court's Guide for Self-Represented Parties found on our website here: https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/rules-and-forms. If service is not effected by 7/29/2024, the case will be subject to dismissal. Dismissal due by 7/29/2024.
Signed by Clerk on 4/30/2024. (Fanelle, N.) -
Order | Filed: April 30, 2024 | Entered: April 30, 2024 Nijland v. Department of Financial Protection & Innovation, CA
Banks and Banking | Connecticut
Electronic Filing Order
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER
Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/30/2024. (Fanelle, N.)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login