Santos v. Cuomo
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-05398
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Santos v. Cuomo, Judge Briccetti denied Santos’s counsel request without prejudice, extended his deadline to oppose defendants’ dismissal motion, and denied further relief.
Santos, the unrepresented plaintiff, was denied appointed counsel without prejudice but received more time to oppose the pending motion to dismiss. Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton Jr.’s pending motion to dismiss remained subject to the extended deadline.
What happened
In Santos v. Cuomo, the court considered Santos’s request for a free lawyer and his request for information about responding to a pending motion to dismiss by Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton Jr.
The court denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Santos could potentially renew it later. The court also extended his deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss to January 30, 2020.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti said the case did not currently present exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel and denied any additional relief requested in Santos’s submissions.
The detailed version
- Santos v. Cuomo · No. 7:19-cv-05398
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background
Santos, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, submitted a motion dated December 8, 2019, requesting appointment of free legal counsel. Santos also submitted a letter requesting information about how to respond to a pending motion to dismiss filed by defendants Anthony Annucci and Robert Morton Jr.
Rulings
The court denied without prejudice Santos’s request for appointment of counsel. The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Santos’s claims, and Santos’s ability to present the case. It concluded that, at that time, the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court also stated that it was not Santos’s attorney and would not provide legal advice.
Because Santos was proceeding without a lawyer, the court extended his deadline to oppose the pending motion to dismiss to January 30, 2020. The court stated that if Santos did not oppose the motion by that date, the motion would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed. To the extent Santos’s submissions requested any other relief, the court denied that relief. The clerk was directed to terminate Santos’s motion for appointed counsel and mail him a copy of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.