Fate v. Julienno
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-05519
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fate v. Julienno, Judge Halpern renewed a directive to seek volunteer counsel for limited discovery and possible summary-judgment work.
Forrest L. Fate Sr. is affected because the Clerk must seek a volunteer lawyer to assist him with limited discovery and any opposition to a possible summary-judgment motion. The Clerk and any volunteering lawyer are involved in carrying out the order.
What happened
Fate v. Julienno concerns Forrest L. Fate Sr.’s request for a volunteer lawyer in his civil case. A prior judge had granted that request, but no volunteer lawyer had yet been found.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to seek a lawyer willing to appear for the limited purposes of conducting discovery and opposing any summary-judgment motion the defendant might file.
Judge Halpern warned that volunteer counsel was not guaranteed and that Fate should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Fate v. Julienno · No. 7:19-cv-05519
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
On September 6, 2019, Judge Román granted Forrest L. Fate Sr.’s request for pro bono counsel, meaning a volunteer lawyer. The case was later reassigned to Judge Philip M. Halpern on April 3, 2020. No volunteer lawyer had been located for Fate by the time of this amended order.
Court’s Action
Because of the time that had passed, the court again directed the Clerk of Court to seek pro bono counsel for Fate. Any lawyer who volunteers would make a limited appearance for the purposes of conducting discovery and opposing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, if the defendant files one. The court adopted the analysis and conclusions of the September 6 order in full, although that earlier order’s analysis is not included in the provided opinion.
Disposition
Judge Halpern ordered the Clerk to attempt to locate volunteer counsel for Fate for those limited purposes. The court explained that there were no funds to hire lawyers in civil cases, that volunteer lawyers were scarce, and that there was no guarantee that a lawyer would accept the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.