Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2021

Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:19-cv-10388
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti denied reconsideration of appointed-counsel relief and denied pauper status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Terri Simmons’s request for appointed counsel was denied at this stage, and her ability to appeal this order without paying fees was denied. The defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending.

What happened

In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Terri Simmons, who was representing herself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of her request for free appointed counsel to respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss her amended complaint.

The court said the request was moot because the motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the court would not reopen briefing. It also found no exceptional circumstances requiring counsel at that stage. The court said it would consider her broader request for counsel after deciding the motion to dismiss.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Simmons’s reconsideration request. He also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied her pauper status for purposes of an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:19-cv-10388
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
May 28, 2021

Background

Terri Simmons, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, moved for appointment of free counsel to help her respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss her amended complaint. The court had previously denied that request as moot because Simmons had already responded to the motion.

Simmons then asked the court to reconsider that earlier order. A reconsideration request asks the court to revisit a prior decision.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Simmons’s request remained moot because defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the court did not intend to reopen briefing. The court separately considered the case’s type and complexity, the merits of Simmons’s claims, and her ability to present the case. It found no exceptional circumstances that warranted appointing counsel to assist her with the response to the motion to dismiss.

The court stated that it would consider Simmons’s request for counsel more generally after ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, including her request and circumstances when deciding that motion.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Simmons’s request for reconsideration of the earlier order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Simmons’s ability to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Effect

The order left the earlier denial of counsel in place for responding to the motion to dismiss. It preserved the court’s consideration of Simmons’s broader request for counsel after the court rules on that motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.