Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2021

Massey v. Holder

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-08067
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Massey v. Holder, Judge Wang lifted the stay and denied Massey’s request for free volunteer counsel without prejudice.

Who this affects

Tyrone H. Massey and the defendants in the action. The stay was lifted, Massey’s request for pro bono counsel was denied without prejudice, and the defendants’ counsel was required to file and mail an updated case-management plan.

What happened

In Massey v. Holder, the court said Tyrone H. Massey’s evaluation under New York Criminal Procedure Law Article 730 was complete and that he was fit to proceed with criminal proceedings. The court therefore lifted the stay that had paused the case.

Massey asked the court to help him obtain a volunteer lawyer. The court denied that request without prejudice, meaning the request was not permanently barred. The court also directed the defendants’ lawyer to file and mail an updated case-management plan for cases involving people without lawyers.

United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on July 12, 2021. The order lifted the stay, denied the request for volunteer counsel without prejudice, and directed the case-management filing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Massey v. Holder · No. 1:20-cv-08067
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
July 12, 2021

Background

The defendants informed the court that Tyrone H. Massey had completed an evaluation under New York Criminal Procedure Law Article 730 and had been found fit to proceed with criminal proceedings. The case had been stayed, meaning paused, while that issue was pending.

Massey also asked the court to help him obtain pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging a fee.

Rulings

The court lifted the stay on the case.

The court denied Massey’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court explained that it could not at that time determine that Massey’s claims were “likely to be of substance,” a consideration relevant to appointing pro bono counsel. The court also noted that Massey had retained counsel in some other open actions concerning his confinement.

The court directed the parties to complete an updated Proposed Case Management Plan for Pro Se Cases. It directed counsel for the defendants to file the plan by July 30, 2021, and mail a copy to Massey. The Clerk of Court was directed to lift the stay and mail Massey a copy of the order.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it addressed the case’s stay, counsel request, and case-management requirements rather than deciding the underlying claims.

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.