Avila v. Tenzie
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-11920
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Avila v. Tenzie, Judge Caproni denied Avila’s request for free counsel without prejudice because it was too early to assess the case’s merits.
Lexy Avila’s request for volunteer counsel and any appeal-related fee waiver were denied; Stacy Tenzie was asked to waive service, and the New York City Department of Correction and New York City Law Department were notified.
What happened
Avila v. Tenzie is a pro se civil-rights case brought by Lexy Avila under a federal law allowing claims against officials who violate constitutional rights. Avila, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, sued New York City Correction Officer Stacy Tenzie. The court had already allowed Avila to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
Avila asked the court to request a volunteer lawyer for her. The court said it could not yet evaluate the merits of her case, which is the most important factor in deciding whether to request counsel. It therefore denied the request without prejudice, meaning Avila could renew it later.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the Clerk to send Avila an information package and notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. The court requested that Tenzie waive service of the summons, denied Avila’s application for free counsel without prejudice to renewal, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Avila v. Tenzie · No. 1:19-cv-11920
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 5, 2020
Background
Lexy Avila, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She alleged that New York City Correction Officer Stacy Tenzie, Shield No. 1478, violated her federal constitutional rights. The court had previously granted Avila permission to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The opinion also notes that prisoners remain responsible for paying the full filing fee under the applicable statute, even when granted that permission.
Service of the lawsuit
The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department about the order. The court requested that Tenzie waive service of the summons. It also directed the Clerk to mail Avila a copy of the order and an information package.
Request for counsel
Avila applied for the court to request pro bono, or volunteer, counsel. The court identified the relevant considerations as the apparent merits of the case, Avila’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and her ability to gather facts and present the case without assistance. The court stated that the merits receive the most attention, but that the case was too early for the court to assess them. It denied the application for counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
Disposition
The court denied Avila’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel, without prejudice to renewal. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Avila’s underlying constitutional allegations were valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.