Order | Filed: August 18, 2026
| Entered: August 18, 2026
Barrere v. County of Nassau et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
Status Report Order
ORDER: Following summary judgment practice and two joint requests for adjournment, this case was scheduled to go to trial on November 17, 2025. See Feb. 20, 2025, Text Order. Given the age and protracted history of this case, the Court warned the parties that it would "not entertain any further requests to adjourn the trial date or any trial-related deadlines." Id. Despite the Court's warning, a week before trial was scheduled to start, Plaintiff's counsel filed a letter motion seeking to adjourn trial "due to many factors" including counsel's inability to communicate with their client while Plaintiff was in state custody because of his unwillingness to take a tuberculosis test at the facility where he was incarcerated. See ECF Nos. 128 and 137 . This prevented counsel from meeting with Plaintiff to prepare for trial. ECF No. 137 . Given the extraordinary circumstances described in Plaintiff's counsel's letter, the Court adjourned jury selection and trial sine die, see Nov. 12, 2025, Text Order.
In December 2025, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion to withdraw, ECF No. 132 , indicating that Plaintiff and his attorneys had "reached a point of irreconcilable differences with no hope of being able to repair the relationship." Id. at 1. On January 28, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel motion to withdraw, administratively closed the case, and gave Plaintiff until February 27, 2026, to hire new counsel or inform the Court that he is proceeding pro se. ECF No. 137 .
On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, reopened the case when he filed a motion requesting that I (i) reconsider my decision to permit his former counsel to withdraw; (ii) reconsider my decision to deny him leave to amend "all of the initial claims" in his Complaint; and recuse myself from this matter. See ECF No. 138 . Plaintiff's motions for recusal and reconsideration were denied for the reasons set forth in the Court's March 6, 2026, Text Order. In addition, the Court construed Plaintiff's motion to include an application for the Court to appoint pro bono counsel and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Scanlon to determine whether pro bono counsel should be appointed. Id. Judge Scanlon granted Plaintiff's motion to appoint pro bono counsel, ECF No. 140 , and requested that an attorney volunteer provide pro bono representation. For nearly five months, the Courts Pro Se Office has tried to retain pro bono counsel for Plaintiff, but those efforts have been unsuccessful. See, e.g., May 1, 2026, Text Order. Plaintiff is reminded that the Court cannot compel an attorney to represent him without payment and that there is a "wide disparity between the great demand for legal assistance for indigent litigants and the very limited availability of pro bono attorney resources." See Gill v. Mount Sinai Hosp., No. 02 Civ. 1651, 2004 WL 5468670, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2004).
In addition, during the same time period, the Court undertook efforts to review the proposed joint pretrial order with Plaintiff and Defendants counsel. See Apr. 10, 2026, Text Order; Apr. 16, 2026, Text Order; May 1, 2026, Text Order. The Court also encouraged the parties to discuss settlement possibilities. See Apr. 10, 2026, Text Order; Apr. 16, 2026, Text Order; Apr. 28, 2026, Text Order. It is evident from these conferences that trial preparation and settlement discussions conducted while Plaintiff is incarcerated are unlikely to move ahead with the necessary speed.
In light of these developments and given that Plaintiff is due to be released from state custody by January 19, 2027, at the latest, the Court hereby stays this matter until Plaintiff is released from custody. Within 30 days of his release, Plaintiff shall notify the Court of his new mailing address.
... (truncated)