Bonneau v. LaManna
- Lisa Smith
- 7:18-cv-02228-CS-AEK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bonneau v. LaManna, Judge Smith denied counsel without prejudice and addressed an untimely request to reconsider an order about a confidential presentence report.
Jude Bonneau, who requested appointed counsel and reconsideration of an earlier order; the order also describes how the court would handle information from his presentence report.
What happened
In Bonneau v. LaManna, Jude Bonneau asked the court to appoint a lawyer, explaining that his legal assistant had died from COVID-19. He also wrote asking the court to reconsider an earlier order concerning the confidentiality of his presentence report.
The court said the new explanation did not address its earlier findings that Bonneau had not shown likely success on his claims, had provided insufficient information about efforts to find a lawyer, and could handle the case without assistance at that time. The court also said the reconsideration request was made after the 14-day deadline.
Judge Lisa Margaret Smith denied the request for counsel without prejudice. She also stated that if the presentence report became necessary, the court would provide the information needed for Bonneau to respond and prepare a reply.
The detailed version
- Bonneau v. LaManna · No. 7:18-cv-02228-CS-AEK
- Lisa Smith
- June 4, 2020
Background
Jude Bonneau submitted a May 13, 2020 letter asking the court to appoint counsel. He said that his legal assistant had died from COVID-19. The court had previously denied his oral request for counsel on August 6, 2019, based on his inability to satisfy the factors used to decide whether counsel should be appointed in a civil case.
Bonneau also submitted a February 4, 2020 letter that appeared to ask Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith to reconsider Judge Cathy Seibel’s October 1, 2019 order concerning the confidentiality of the presentence report under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 390.50.
Court’s analysis
Regarding counsel, the court said Bonneau’s new explanation did not address its earlier findings that he had not shown his claims were likely to succeed on the merits, that the court lacked information about his efforts to obtain counsel, and that he was capable of handling the case without assistance at that time.
Regarding reconsideration, the court stated that such requests must be made within 14 days under Local Rule 6.3 and that the deadline had passed by February 4, 2020. The court also referred to Judge Seibel’s statement that, if the presentence report proved material to a report and recommendation, the magistrate judge would either share the necessary information beforehand or use another method to ensure Bonneau had an opportunity to be heard.
Disposition
Judge Lisa Margaret Smith denied Bonneau’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. The order also stated that, if the presentence report became necessary to prepare a report and recommendation on Bonneau’s claims, the court would convey the necessary information and allow him sufficient time to reply. The order was mailed to Bonneau, whom the opinion identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.