Opinion ID: 2792848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appointment of Substitute Counsel

Text: A district court’s decision denying a motion to appoint counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68 (2d Cir. 2011). Factors to consider in determining whether to appoint counsel in a civil case include: (1) the nature of the factual issues involved; (2) the importance of credibility determinations; (3) the plaintiff’s apparent ability to present the case; and (4) the complexity of the legal issues involved. Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, the Hodge factors do not strongly favor the appointment of counsel. Nonetheless, it is troubling that Kearney’s difficulties communicating with counsel appear to have been, at least partially, a result of his incarceration. However, Kearney never disputed that he chose not to take counsel’s call, and he gives no explanation for his failure to contact counsel and explain why he was unable to receive the call. Given these considerations and the fact that the Hodge factors do not overwhelmingly support appointment of counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion in relieving counsel and refusing to appoint new representation. 5 We have considered Kearney’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6