Brock v. Avanzado
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-05891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brock v. Avanzado, Judge Briccetti denied Brock’s requests for a hearing, more time, and court-appointed counsel, while leaving counsel request open for renewal.
Vincent Brock’s requests for a hearing, additional time, and court-appointed counsel were denied; the counsel request was denied without prejudice. The order also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Brock v. Avanzado, Vincent Brock, who was representing himself, asked the court to let him speak in person, give him more time to perfect his claim, and seek a free lawyer for him.
The court denied the request for a hearing because there was no basis for one and said it would decide the pending motion to dismiss based on the written submissions. It also denied more time because Brock had already responded to the motion to dismiss and did not need to act further then.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for court-appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Brock could renew that request, because the court found no exceptional circumstances. The court also said an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
The detailed version
- Brock v. Avanzado · No. 7:19-cv-05891
- Vincent Briccetti
- Apr. 6, 2020
Background
Vincent Brock, proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying court fees, filed a motion dated March 23, 2020. He asked the court to (1) address the court in person, (2) extend his time to “perfect” his claim, and (3) seek a free lawyer for him. The opinion does not explain what Brock meant by “perfect” his claim.
A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was already fully submitted. Brock had filed an opposition to that motion.
Rulings
The court denied Brock’s request for a hearing. It stated that there was no basis for a hearing at that time and that the pending motion to dismiss would be decided on the written submissions.
The court denied Brock’s request for more time. The court said it was unclear what he meant by asking for time to “perfect” his claim, and it explained that Brock had already submitted his opposition to the motion to dismiss and did not need to take further action at that time.
The court denied Brock’s request for the court to seek pro bono, or free, counsel without prejudice. This means the denial did not bar a later request. Relying on its earlier orders and the standard for appointing counsel, the court stated that Brock’s case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. The court noted that Brock remained free to hire a lawyer himself.
Appeal certification
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Brock permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Effect of the order
This order decided Brock’s requests for a hearing, additional time, and court assistance in obtaining counsel. It did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.