Brown v. Venettozi
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-02628-KMK
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Brown v. Venettozi, Judge Karas denied Brown’s requests to deny a nonexistent motion, obtain initial disclosures, and appoint counsel.
Johnny B. Brown’s requests for initial disclosures and appointed counsel were denied; his request to deny the defendants’ motion was also denied because no defendants’ motion was pending.
What happened
In Brown v. Venettozi, Johnny B. Brown, who was incarcerated and representing himself, asked the court to deny what he said was the defendants’ mistaken motion involving defendants from another case. He also asked for documents related to a superintendent’s hearing, an Article 78 proceeding, and the current civil-rights case.
Brown additionally asked the court to order the defendants to provide those documents and to appoint a lawyer because he said the case was becoming more complex and he had limited access to legal resources. The court explained that the defendants had no motions pending, so it denied Brown’s request to deny their motion.
Judge Karas denied Brown’s request for initial disclosures without prejudice because Brown should first request those materials from the defendants. The court also denied his request for appointed counsel; the opinion’s text appears corrupted as to whether that denial was with or without prejudice, and the court cited Brown’s failure to explain efforts to obtain a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Venettozi · No. 7:18-cv-02628-KMK
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
Johnny B. Brown, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, filed a document titled as a request for initial disclosure and a reply concerning the defendants’ response to an amended complaint. Brown stated that he had not filed a third amended complaint and argued that the defendants had confused defendants from two different cases. He asked the court to deny the defendants’ motion.
Brown also requested copies of materials concerning a superintendent’s hearing, transcripts of that hearing, an Article 78 proceeding, litigation and disciplinary matters involving the defendants, and documents concerning the current action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asked the court to order the defendants to produce the requested documents. Finally, he asked the court to reconsider his request for appointed counsel, citing the increasing complexity of the case and his limited access to the law library and legal assistance.
Rulings
The court denied Brown’s request to deny the defendants’ motion because the defendants had no pending motions. It denied Brown’s request for initial disclosure without prejudice, explaining that the requests should first be directed to the defendants.
The court also denied Brown’s request for appointed counsel because he did not explain what efforts he had made to obtain counsel. The opinion’s text renders the prejudice language for this ruling as “withor prejudice,” so the available text does not clearly establish whether the denial was with or without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to mail Brown a copy of the order.
Classification
This was a procedural order addressing document requests and appointment of counsel; it did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims. Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order on April 14, 2021.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.