Houston v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Houston v. Capra, Judge Briccetti denied Houston’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice and gave directions about discovery, settlement, and an appeal.
Tyrone Houston’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice. Houston and the defendants also received directions concerning discovery and settlement, and Houston was denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Houston v. Capra, Tyrone Houston, who is incarcerated and representing himself, made his third request for a lawyer to be appointed. The court considered the case’s type and complexity, the strength of his claims, and his ability to present the case.
The court found Houston to be an able and sophisticated litigant and did not find exceptional circumstances requiring appointed counsel at that time. It also directed Houston to try to resolve any discovery concerns with defense counsel before bringing them to the court, and directed defense counsel to discuss settlement in good faith.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Houston may renew it later, but instructed him not to file another request until discovery is complete. The court also required a settlement-status report by October 7, 2022, and denied fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Houston v. Capra · No. 7:20-cv-02135
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 7, 2022
Background
Tyrone Houston, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, moved for appointment of counsel. The opinion states that this was his third application for appointed counsel.
Houston also stated that the defendants’ discovery responses were not helpful and indicated that he was interested in settlement.
Appointment of Counsel
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Houston’s claims, and his ability to present the case. It found that Houston was an able and sophisticated litigant and concluded that exceptional circumstances did not warrant appointing counsel at that time under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal. It instructed Houston not to file another motion for appointed counsel until discovery is complete.
Discovery and Settlement Directions
The court stated that, if Houston believed the defendants’ document production or answers to written questions were deficient, he should explain the problems to defense counsel and try to resolve them with counsel before raising them with the court. The court reminded the parties that they must work cooperatively throughout discovery.
Because Houston expressed interest in settlement, the court directed defense counsel to discuss settlement with him in good faith. Counsel also had to provide a status report by October 7, 2022, including whether the court could assist with settlement.
Appeal and Disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Houston fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion, and chambers would mail Houston a copy of the order.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s order denied the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.