Arriaga v. Annucci
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:23-cv-01941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arriaga v. Annucci, Judge Briccetti denied counsel without prejudice and invited renewed written-question deposition requests under stated deadlines.
Anthony Arriaga’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. The order also set a possible schedule and required contents for any renewed request to depose incarcerated witnesses by written questions, affecting Arriaga and the defendants.
What happened
Anthony Arriaga asked the court in Arriaga v. Annucci to appoint a lawyer to help with discovery. He said he had been unable to obtain help from the New York Legal Assistance Group and could not communicate with incarcerated witnesses as needed.
The court said it could not appoint a lawyer under the fee-waiver statute, but could ask a lawyer to volunteer. After considering the case’s type and complexity, the strength of Arriaga’s claims, and his ability to present them, the court found that a request for counsel was not warranted at that time.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Arriaga’s motion without prejudice, allowing him to renew it later. The court also encouraged him to file one renewed motion for written-question depositions by October 15, 2024; defendants would have until October 29, 2024, to respond, and other discovery deadlines would remain unchanged.
The detailed version
- Arriaga v. Annucci · No. 7:23-cv-01941
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Anthony Arriaga moved for appointment of counsel on August 26, 2024. The motion was received on September 3 and docketed on September 12. Arriaga asked for a court-appointed attorney to assist with discovery, stating that he had been unsuccessful in contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group and was unable to correspond with incarcerated witnesses to corroborate his claims and obtain additional supporting information.
Appointment of counsel
The court explained that the fee-waiver statute does not authorize it to appoint counsel; instead, the court may request that an attorney volunteer to represent a litigant. Applying the factors concerning the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Arriaga’s claims, and his ability to present the case, the court concluded that requesting counsel was not warranted at that time.
The court therefore denied without prejudice Arriaga’s motion for appointment of counsel. The ruling allows a later renewal at an appropriate time.
Written-question depositions
Arriaga had previously filed four motions seeking to take depositions of incarcerated individuals by written questions under Rule 31(a). The court had denied those motions without prejudice on July 22, 2024, while allowing Arriaga to renew the request by August 22, 2024. The court had not received a renewed request by the date of this order.
The court stated that Arriaga could use depositions by written questions or other formal discovery methods to obtain information from incarcerated witnesses. It encouraged him to renew his request by October 15, 2024, in one motion addressing:
- the information each proposed witness is believed to possess; - how the deposition would be recorded; - the estimated cost; - how Arriaga intended to pay the costs; and - alternative ways to obtain the same information, including their relative costs and burdens.
If Arriaga filed a renewed request, defendants were required to respond by October 29, 2024. The court stated that all other discovery deadlines would remain unchanged unless it later ordered otherwise.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the clerk to terminate the counsel motion, docket number 73. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.