Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-06807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Monroe v. Jouliana, Judge Briccetti denied counsel without prejudice, addressed consent for a magistrate judge, and kept Monroe’s opposition under consideration.
Michael J. Monroe’s requests for appointed counsel and for proceedings before a magistrate judge were affected. The defendants were ordered to consider whether to consent to the magistrate judge’s authority. The defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending, with Monroe’s opposition still to be considered.
What happened
In Michael J. Monroe v. HSA Nurse Administrator Jouliana, et al., Monroe, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees, asked the court to appoint a free lawyer and transfer the case to a magistrate judge. He also filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The court said the case did not present exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel, considering the case’s complexity, the strength of Monroe’s claims, and his ability to present them. The court also explained that a magistrate judge could handle the entire case only if all parties agreed.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Monroe’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. He ordered the defendants to consider whether they would consent to proceedings before the magistrate judge, terminated Monroe’s letter-motions and opposition as separate docketed motions, and stated that the opposition would still be considered when ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Monroe v. Rockland County Correctional Facility · No. 7:20-cv-06807
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 11, 2021
Background
Michael J. Monroe filed a letter-motion asking the court to appoint pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer provided without charge. He also asked to transfer the case to a magistrate judge. Monroe was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court fees. Separately, he filed an opposition to the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, labeling it a “Motion to Oppose.”
Appointment of Counsel
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Monroe’s claims, and his ability to present the case. It found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court therefore denied without prejudice Monroe’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel.
Magistrate Judge Request
The court explained that it could not transfer the entire case to a magistrate judge unless all parties consented to that arrangement for all purposes, including trial. The court ordered the defendants to consider whether they were willing to consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If all parties consented and the court approved the consent form, the magistrate judge would conduct all further proceedings. The order did not state that the parties had consented or that the case had been transferred.
Docket Treatment of the Filings
The Clerk was directed to terminate Monroe’s two letter-motions. The Clerk was also directed to terminate Monroe’s opposition because it was not a new motion. The court clarified that it would still consider the opposition when deciding the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, ordered the defendants to consider consent to a magistrate judge, and directed that the letter-motions and opposition be terminated as separate motions. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.