Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti denied Brock’s request for counsel without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Terrell K. Brock, the incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, remains responsible for presenting his case unless the court later appoints counsel. The order also denies him permission to appeal this order without paying filing fees.
What happened
Terrell K. Brock, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued CVS Corporation and other named and unnamed defendants. He asked the court to appoint a lawyer for him.
The court considered the case’s type and complexity, the apparent merits of Brock’s claims, and his ability to present the case. It found no exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel at that time.
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later. The court also said an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 8, 2022
Background
Terrell K. Brock sued CVS Corporation, Manager Leo, the City of White Plains, and John Doe White Plains Police Department officers. The order states that Brock is incarcerated, is proceeding without a lawyer, and is proceeding without paying filing fees. Brock moved for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
Court’s reasoning
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Brock’s claims, and Brock’s ability to present the case. It determined that exceptional circumstances did not warrant appointing counsel at that time. The order does not provide additional details about Brock’s claims or explain the court’s assessment of their merits.
Ruling
The court denied Brock’s motion for appointment of 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 filing fees. Chambers was directed to mail Brock a copy of the order at the address on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.