Genao v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-04872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Genao v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil allowed an amendment but denied counsel and an unhandcuffing request.
Gabino Genao, the defendants, and the proposed additional defendant Christopher Alleyne were affected by the case-management and amendment rulings; Genao was also affected by the rulings on counsel and unhandcuffing.
What happened
Gabino Genao appeared without a lawyer at an initial pretrial conference in Genao v. City of New York; the other defendants appeared through lawyers. The court said the case had lasted unnecessarily long and warned that failing to follow court orders or promptly raise discovery problems could lead to penalties.
The court allowed Genao to file a second amended complaint adding Christopher Alleyne as a defendant by August 29, 2022. It denied Genao’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice, explaining that it could not force a lawyer to represent him and could not yet determine whether recommending counsel was appropriate. It also denied his request to be unhandcuffed during legal calls and while reviewing discovery, while forwarding that request to the Attica legal office for consideration.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order. The order addressed case-management, counsel, and security-related requests rather than deciding the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Genao v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04872
- Vyskocil
- July 28, 2022
Background
The court held an initial pretrial conference on July 27, 2022. Gabino Genao appeared without a lawyer, while the remaining defendants appeared through counsel. The court stated that the case had been unnecessarily protracted and said it would separately enter the case-management plan discussed at the conference.
Orders at the Conference
The court granted Genao leave to file a second amended complaint adding Christopher Alleyne as a defendant. It required Genao to file that complaint by August 29, 2022.
The court warned all parties that discovery disputes must be brought to its attention promptly. It also warned that failing to raise discovery issues or comply with the court’s orders and individual civil-practice rules could result in sanctions, including preventing a party from using evidence, dismissing defenses, or dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.
Requests for Counsel and Unhandcuffing
The court denied Genao’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice. It explained that it could not compel counsel to represent him and that, at this early stage, it could not determine whether recommending pro bono counsel would be appropriate. The court noted that it had previously granted a partial motion to dismiss and had allowed Genao to amend the complaint to add a new defendant. It directed Genao to the Southern District of New York’s Pro Se Office for any assistance it could provide in identifying counsel or referring him to legal-assistance organizations.
The court also denied Genao’s letter request titled “Free From Restraint During Legal Call.” The request sought an order directing Attica Correctional Facility to allow him to be unhandcuffed during teleconferences and while reviewing discovery. The court said it would forward the request to Attica’s Legal Office for consideration, but it did not grant the requested relief.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted leave to amend, denied the motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice, and denied the request to be unhandcuffed during legal calls and discovery review. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.