1 Lynch et al v. DeMarco et al Doc. 286 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X RICKY LYNCH, JERRY FINCH, JR., DAMIEN R. SMALL, LEROY C. JONES, THEODORE DAVIS, MACK BUTLER, EDDIE M. SIMS, DALLAS JOHNSON, FELIPE ROVELO, ROBERT BERNHARD, ADAM WILLIAMS, DONALD BANGS, EDWARD KEYES, JASON COOPER, KEVIN M. MASSEY, DARRYL ISSAC, CALVIN FELDER, ANDREW ZEIGLER, CHESTER INGRAM, DONNELL STENGLE, KEVIN KING, HOWARD DAVIS, THOMAS HARPER, DARYL MILLER, DEWAYNE BUTLER, KEITH KING, and RAY KELLY, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 11-CV-2602(JS)(ARL) Plaintiffs, -against- VINCENT F. DEMARCO, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of County, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, individually and in their official capacity as Superintendent of Suffolk County, Defendants X APPEARANCES: For Plaintiffs: Mack Butler, , Pro Se Jason Cooper, , Pro Se Calvin Felder, , Pro Se Andrew Zeigler, , Pro Se Kevin King, , Pro Se Howard Davis, , Pro Se Daryl Miller, , Pro Se Keith King,436122, Pro Se Ray Kelly, , Pro Se SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 100 Center Drive Riverhead, NY Ricky Lynch, 11A4769, Pro Se Leroy C. Jones, 11A4675, Pro Se Dallas Johnson, 11A4679, Pro Se DOWNSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Box F Red Schoolhouse Road Fishkill, NY Dockets.Justia.com
2 Jerry Finch, Jr., 11A3785, Pro Se CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY P.O. Box 2001 Dannemora, NY Damien R. Small, 11-A-2159, Pro Se SING SING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY Theodore Davis, Pro Se 22 Bogart Street Huntington Station, NY Eddie M. Sims, Pro Se 4 Ronek Drive Amityville, NY Felipe Rovelo, 11R1687, Pro Se GROVELAND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY P.O. Box 50 Sonyea, NY Robert Bernhard, Pro Se 104 Highview Dr. Selden, NY Donald Bangs, 11R2402, Pro Se CAPE VINCENT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Rte. 12E P.O. Box 739 Cape Vincent, NY Edward Keyes, 11R2324, Pro Se Chester Ingram, 11R2266, Pro Se MOHAWK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 6100 School Road P.O. Box 8451 Rome, NY Kevin M. Massey, , Pro Se COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION ANNEX 253 S.E. Corrections Way Lake City, FL Darryl Issac, Pro Se P.O. Box 386 Central Islip, NY
3 Donnell Stengle, 10R0502, Pro Se WILLARD DRUG TREATMENT CAMPUS 7116 County Road 132 P.O. Box 303 Willard, NY Adam Williams, , Pro Se KIRKLAND RECEPTION & EVALUATION CENTER F1-129B 4344 Broad River Road Columbia, SC Thomas Harper, Pro Se 6 Linton Ct. West Babylon, NY Dewayne Butler, /039315, Pro Se NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER 100 Carman Avenue East Meadow, NY For Defendants: Arlene S. Zwilling, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney P.O. Box 6100 H. Lee Dennison Building - Fifth Floor Hauppauge, New York SEYBERT, District Judge: Presently pending before the Court is the pro se Complaint brought by the above-named present and former inmates at the Suffolk County Correctional Facility ( SCCF ) (collectively, Plaintiffs ) pursuant to 42 U.S.C ( Section 1983 ) complaining about the conditions at the SCCF. The Court finds that the appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), [t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel. Courts possess broad discretion when determining whether 3
4 appointment is appropriate, subject to the requirement that it be guided by sound legal principle. Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, (2d Cir. 1989) (quoting Jenkins v. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1983)) (per curiam). The Second Circuit set forth the guiding legal principle as follows: First, the district court must determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance. If this threshold requirement is met: the court should then consider the indigent's ability to investigate the crucial facts, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder, the indigent's ability to present the case, the complexity of the legal issues and any special reason... why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination. Rivas v. Suffolk County, Nos , , 2008 WL 45406, at * 1 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2008) (quoting Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, (2d Cir. 1986)). The Second Circuit has explained that these factors are not restrictive and that [e]ach case must be decided on its own facts. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint and Amended Complaint and the attachments to the Complaints and finds that the appointment of counsel is warranted. The threshold factor of Hodge has been met and upon consideration of the need for assistance in the orderly progression of the case, the balance of factors weigh in favor of appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court s pro se office is directed to seek the appointment of pro bono counsel for Plaintiffs forthwith. 4
5 The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiffs. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, , 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2011 Central Islip New York /s/ JOANNA SEYBERT Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J. 5
United States District Court Western District of Michigan FILING YOUR LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT * This handbook is not for use by prisoners * Prepared by the Office of the Clerk United States District Court
Case 4:10-cv-00060-CDL Document 13 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION CHARLIE LEONARD, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * CASE NO.
Magellan Health Services, Inc. v. CDMI, LLC et al Doc. 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------------------------------X MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES,
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DIVISION IN RE: * * [Debtor s Name] * (***-**-last four digits of SSN) * Case No. - [Joint Debtor s Name, if any * Chapter 13 (***-**-last
Case 9:10-cv-81634-KLR Document 122 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/16/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-81634-Civ-RYSKAMP/HOPKINS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS SHARKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERAL O NEAL; SILVA FOSTER; D. GRAHAM; CHARLES SYDNEY, Defendants-Appellees. No. 11-15619 D.C.
THE IMPACT OF HIPAA S PRIVACY RULES ON THE DISCOVERY OF HEALTH INFORMATION IN LITIGATION: UPDATED Michael D. Shalhoub Anthony M. Maragno 99 Park Avenue Heidell Pittoni Murphy & Bach LLP New York, NY 10016
STATE OF MICHIGAN 1N THE 30t JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF INGHAM CHRISTOPHER LEE DUNCAN, BILLY JOE BURR, Jr., STEVEN CONNOR, ANTONIO TAYLOR, JOSE DAVILA, JENNIFER O'SULLIVAN, CHRISTOPHER MANTES and
PRISON LAW OFFICE GENERAL DELIVERY SAN QUENTIN, CA 94964 www.prisonlaw.com LAWSUITS FOR MONEY DAMAGES AGAINST PRISON OFFICIALS Updated August 2006 Your Responsibility When Using the Information Provided
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
SUFFOLK LAWYER THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION THE DEDICATED TO LEGAL EXCELLENCE SINCE 1908 website: www.scba.org Vol. 27 No.9 May 2012 INSIDE MAY 2012 FOCUS ON FEDERAL COURTS
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 11-3440 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner 1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, N.J. REGION, Intervenor v. NEW VISTA NURSING
Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 52 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, et al., Plaintiffs,
Marchman Act Adult Package MARCHMAN ACT PACKAGE Page 2 General Information Notice Of Limitation Of Service Provided ADA Notice Table of Contents Page 3 Flow Chart for General Process for Petition for Involuntary
Case 3:02-cv-02186-B Document 348 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 11 PageID 4981 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO.
PRACTICE GUIDELINES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Attorneys Practicing Before Me And Other Interested Persons C. Timothy Corcoran, III United States Bankruptcy Judge DATE: January 3, 2000 1 RE: Sample Bankruptcy
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. STATE OF OHIO, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : Case No. 2:91-cv-464 Judge
12-50073-a998 Doc#407 Filed 11/20/12 Entered 11/20/12 10:39:49 Main Document Pg 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION IN RE: DELTA PRODUCE, L.P. CASE NO.
SOUTHEASTERN BANKRUPTCY LAW INSTITUTE, INC. THIRTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL SEMINAR BANKRUPTCY LAW AND RULES MARCH 22-24, 2012 ATLANTA, GEORGIA Ancillary Litigation Personal Injury/Employment Discrimination/ Workers
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SEX OFFENDER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES OFFICE OF GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING NOVEMBER 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 4 Mission Statement...
FOIA Guide for Law Enforcement Introduction This guide is intended to assist law enforcement agencies in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by outlining issues common to law enforcement