Peters v. Huttel
- Nelson Roman
- 7:15-cv-09274
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Peters v. Huttel, Judge Roman granted Tyrone Peters’s request that the court seek volunteer counsel for his surviving excessive-force claim.
Tyrone Peters, who was representing himself and sought volunteer counsel; the defendants—Correction Officers Daniel Huttel and Jeffrey Erns and Sergeant Duane Malark—whose remaining excessive-force claim would proceed.
What happened
In Peters v. Huttel, Tyrone Peters, representing himself, sued Correction Officer Daniel Huttel, Correction Officer Jeffrey Erns, and Sergeant Duane Malark under a federal civil-rights law. After the court partially granted the defendants’ request for summary judgment, Peters’s excessive-force claim remained against all three defendants.
Peters asked the court to help him obtain a volunteer lawyer. The court concluded that his surviving claim was likely substantial and that a lawyer could help prepare the case for trial. It granted his application for the court to request free volunteer counsel, but explained that no lawyer was guaranteed to accept the case.
Judge Roman also said the case would continue on its normal schedule while the court sought counsel. The court directed the Clerk to mail Peters a copy of the order and reminded the parties to attend the next scheduled status conference.
The detailed version
- Peters v. Huttel · No. 7:15-cv-09274
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 21, 2020
Background
Tyrone Peters brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while representing himself. He sued Correction Officer Daniel Huttel, Correction Officer Jeffrey Erns, and Sergeant Duane Malark. The opinion states that, on December 5, 2019, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The remaining claim concerned alleged excessive force by Huttel, Erns, and Malark.
Request for Counsel
At a January 24, 2020 status conference, Peters expressed interest in having the court appoint a volunteer lawyer. The court found that the claim surviving summary judgment was “likely to be of substance” and that counsel could help produce a quicker and more just result by clarifying the issues and shaping examination as the matter appeared to be moving toward trial.
Ruling and Effect
The court granted Peters’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel. The order did not state that a particular lawyer had been appointed. Instead, it explained that the court relies on volunteers, that a lengthy period could pass before a lawyer volunteers, and that there was no guarantee a volunteer attorney would take the case. Peters was told to be prepared to continue without counsel and that accepting any lawyer’s offer would be his decision. The court directed the Clerk to mail Peters the order and file proof of service, and it reminded the parties to attend the next status conference on March 26, 2020. Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.