McAvoy v. Franco
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-08345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In McAvoy v. Franco, Judge Briccetti denied McAvoy’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Matthew Joseph McAvoy, who requested appointed counsel and permission to appeal without paying court filing fees.
What happened
McAvoy v. Franco concerns Matthew Joseph McAvoy’s request for a court-appointed lawyer. McAvoy was representing himself and was not paying court filing fees. He brought claims under a federal civil-rights law, alleging that Correction Officer Franco violated his constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment while McAvoy was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
The court considered the case’s type and complexity, the apparent merits of McAvoy’s claims, and his ability to present the case himself. It decided that the case did not involve exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel at that time.
Judge Briccetti denied McAvoy’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, allowing him to renew the request later. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McAvoy permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- McAvoy v. Franco · No. 7:20-cv-08345
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 5, 2021
Background
Matthew Joseph McAvoy, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying court filing fees, asked the court to appoint an attorney. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violating federal rights. McAvoy alleged that Correction Officer Franco violated his Eighth Amendment rights while McAvoy was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
Court’s analysis
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of McAvoy’s claims, and McAvoy’s ability to present the case. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances did not warrant appointing counsel at that time.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied McAvoy’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate time in the future. 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 permission to appeal without paying court filing fees. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, and chambers was directed to mail McAvoy a copy of the order.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court ruled on the ancillary request for appointed counsel and did not decide whether McAvoy’s underlying Eighth Amendment claims were valid.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.