Watson v. New York State United Teachers Union Local Librarians Association of the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
TRACEY WATSON,
DECISION
Plaintiff, 	and
v. 	ORDER
NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS 	23-CV-356-JLS-LGF
UNION LOCAL LIBRARIANS ASSOCIATION
OF THE BUFFALO AND ERIE COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant.
______________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	TRACEY WATSON, Pro se
14460 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 149-105
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27614
NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Attorneys for Defendant
JENNA S. BURKE
270 Essjay Road
Williamsville, New York 14221
and
JENNIFER NICOLE COFFEY, of Counsel
800 Troy-Schenectady Road
Latham, New York 12110-2455
On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff Tracey Watson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
commenced this employment discrimination action with the filing of a Complaint
asserting claims against Defendant New York State United Teachers Union Local
Librarians Association of the Buffalo and Erie County Public Library (“Defendant” or “the
Union”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff’s Complaint was
accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. 2) (“IFP
Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 16 Filed 06/04/25 Page 1 of 4

2
motion”). On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3)
(Plaintiff’s motion”). In an Order filed February 18, 2025, Honorable John L. Sinatra, Jr.,
granted Plaintiff’s IFP motion and screened the Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a), determining the Complaint presents “colorable claims” that survive screening
(Dkt. 6) (“Screening Order”). On February 19, 2025, Judge Sinatra referred the matter
to the undersigned (Dkt. 8). Defendant takes no position on Plaintiff’s motion.
Although there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases, under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court may appoint counsel to assist indigent litigants. See,
e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23 (2d
Cir. 1988). Assignment of counsel in this matter is clearly within the judge's discretion.
In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). The factors to be considered in
deciding whether or not to assign counsel include whether (1) the indigent's claims
seem likely to be of substance; (2) the indigent is able to investigate the crucial facts
concerning her claim; (3) conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-
examination will be the major proof presented to the fact finder; (4) the legal issues
involved are complex; and (5) there are any special reasons why appointment of
counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination. Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114
F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir.
1986).
The court must consider the issue of appointment carefully, of course, because
“every assignment of a volunteer lawyer to an undeserving client deprives society of a
volunteer lawyer available for a deserving cause.” Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d
170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). Therefore, the court must first look to the “likelihood of merit” of
Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 16 Filed 06/04/25 Page 2 of 4

3
the underlying dispute, Hendricks, 114 F.3d at 392; Cooper, 877 F.2d at 174, and “even
though a claim may not be characterized as frivolous, counsel should not be appointed
in a case where the merits of the . . . claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are
therefore poor.” Carmona v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d
Cir. 2001) (denying counsel on appeal where petitioner's appeal was not frivolous but
nevertheless appeared to have little merit).
Here, the court has carefully reviewed the Complaint and finds that despite the
Screening Order’s determination that Plaintiff’s claims are not frivolous and, thus, are
“colorable” so as to survive dismissal under § 1915(e)(2), the exhibits attached to the
Complaint demonstrate that the crucial facts necessary to establish Plaintiff’s claims, as
well as any conflicting evidence Defendants may present, should be within Plaintiff’s
ability to investigate. Further, the legal issues involved, specifically, whether Defendant
failed to provide Plaintiff with any representation to which Plaintiff was entitled pursuant
to the Union’s contract, are not complex and Plaintiff fails to identify any special reasons
why appointment of counsel would be more likely to lead to a just determination.
Based on this review, the court finds the Complaint does not warrant assignment
of counsel. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice at
this time. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to retain an attorney or press forward with this
lawsuit pro se. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. To assist plaintiff in pursuing this case pro se, the
Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff the court's booklet entitled Pro Se Litigation
Guidelines.
Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 16 Filed 06/04/25 Page 3 of 4

4
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 3) is
DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send plaintiff the court's
Pro Se Litigation Guidelines booklet.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
______________________________________
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: 	June 4, 2025
Buffalo, New York
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), Petitioner shall have fourteen (14) days from
service of this Decision and Order to file written objections with the District
Judge.
Case 1:23-cv-00356-JLS-LGF Document 16 Filed 06/04/25 Page 4 of 4