JOHN KOELTL, District Judge
In his motion dated August 22, 2005, the plaintiff seeks to disqualify the United States Attorneys Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of New York from serving as counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff asserts that a conflict of interest exists between the USAO and the defendants because the defendants are not in a position to raise a qualified immunity defense.
The district court retains broad discretion in deciding a motion to disqualify an attorney. See Cheng v. GAF Corp., 631 F.2d 1052, 1055 (2d Cir. 1980) (collecting cases), vacated on other grounds, 450 U.S. 903 (1981); Decora Inc. v. DW Wallcovering, Inc., 899 F.Supp. 132, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The party seeking disqualification must satisfy a high standard of proof before the court will grant disqualification. Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp., 715 F.2d 788, 791 (2d Cir. 1983); Decora Inc., 899 F.Supp. at 135. In general, motions to disqualify are viewed with disfavor in this Circuit. See Decora Inc., 899 F.Supp. at 135; In re Maritima Aragua, S.A., 847 F.Supp. 1177, 1179 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (collecting cases).
Essentially, the plaintiff seeks to disqualify the USAO because he finds the defendants' assertion of a qualified immunity defense to be meritless. Even construing this motion liberally in light of the plaintiff's pro se status, the plaintiff has failed to meet his high burden of showing a sufficient basis for disqualifying the USAO from representing the defendants in this case. The plaintiff has failed to show any conflict of interest between the USAO and the individual defendants and has failed to show that the USAO cannot represent the individual defendants consistently with the ethical obligations of the USAO. Therefore the plaintiff's motion to disqualify the USAO is denied.
SO ORDERED.