Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-10388
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Briccetti denied counsel without prejudice, extended Simmons’s response deadline, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Terri Simmons, who was representing herself and sought appointed counsel and additional time, and the defendants whose motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon, defendants had asked the court to dismiss Terri Simmons’s second amended complaint. Instead of responding to that request, Simmons asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer or give her more time to seek legal help.
The court denied Simmons’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice. It extended her deadline to respond to the dismissal request until August 22, 2022, warning that the request would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed if she missed that deadline. The court also denied fee-free appeal status for this order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti said the case did not present exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel. The order did not decide the defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint.
The detailed version
- Simmons v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:19-cv-10388
- Vincent Briccetti
- July 21, 2022
Background
On May 20, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Simmons’s second amended complaint. The court had previously extended Simmons’s deadline to oppose that motion to July 19, 2022.
On July 18, 2022, rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, Simmons moved for appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent her without charging her. In the alternative, she requested more time to seek legal assistance.
Counsel Request
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Simmons’s claims, and her ability to present the case. It found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court therefore denied without prejudice Simmons’s motion for appointed counsel.
Extended Response Deadline
Because courts give special consideration to people representing themselves, the court extended Simmons’s deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss until August 22, 2022. The court stated that if she did not file her opposition by that date, the motion to dismiss would be treated as fully submitted and unopposed and would be decided in due course. The court also stated that, absent compelling circumstances, it was unlikely to grant another extension.
Appeal Status and Disposition
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Simmons fee-free appeal status. It instructed the clerk to terminate Simmons’s motion for appointed counsel, docket entry 72. This order did not decide the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.