McPhee v. Laino
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-10095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McPhee v. Laino, Judge Briccetti denied McPhee’s request for court help contacting a private legal clinic.
Aasim McPhee, who was representing himself and seeking help contacting NYLAG’s legal clinic.
What happened
In McPhee v. Laino, Aasim McPhee, who is representing himself, asked the court to help him contact the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants.
The court denied the request because the clinic is operated by an independent private organization, not by the court. The court nevertheless said it would mail McPhee additional copies of the clinic’s flyer, contact information, and a blank retainer form. It also reminded him to send future court correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit rather than directly to the judge’s chambers.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied McPhee permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
The detailed version
- McPhee v. Laino · No. 7:22-cv-10095
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 31, 2024
Background
Aasim McPhee, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, sent a letter directly to the judge’s chambers. He said he had been unsuccessful in obtaining legal assistance from the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (NYLAG) Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants and asked the court to help him contact an attorney at the clinic. The letter stated that McPhee was trying to oppose the defendants’ request for access to his medical records.
The Court’s Ruling
The court denied McPhee’s request for assistance contacting NYLAG. It explained that the clinic is run by an independent private organization and is not part of, or operated by, the court. The court said it could not assist McPhee in pursuing the clinic’s services.
The court nevertheless directed that additional copies of the clinic flyer, which includes contact information, and a blank retainer form be mailed to McPhee. It also reminded him to direct future correspondence to the Pro Se Intake Unit at the listed White Plains address, rather than sending it directly to chambers. Chambers was directed to mail McPhee a copy of the order and the clinic materials.
Appeal Filing Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied McPhee permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.