Peters v. Huttel
- Nelson Roman
- 7:15-cv-09274
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Peters v. Huttel, Judge Roman granted Peters’s renewed request for volunteer counsel in his excessive-force case.
Tyrone Peters, who was representing himself in the remaining excessive-force claim, and the defendant correctional officers in the case. The order directs the court to seek a volunteer lawyer for Peters but does not guarantee that one will accept the representation.
What happened
In Peters v. Huttel, Tyrone Peters, who is representing himself, sued correctional officers under a federal civil-rights law. After an earlier ruling, only Peters’s excessive-force claim against Daniel Huttel, Jeffrey Erns, and Duane Malark remained.
Peters had previously asked for a volunteer lawyer, and the court had granted that request. The case was later discontinued after the parties reported a settlement, but Peters withdrew from the settlement, and the court declined to enforce it because it was not put in writing. Peters then said he wanted to continue the case, which was scheduled for a jury trial.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Peters’s renewed request that the court seek volunteer counsel. The court explained that a volunteer lawyer might help make the trial quicker and fairer, but warned that there might be a long wait, no lawyer was guaranteed, and the case would continue at its normal pace while Peters remained prepared to proceed without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Peters v. Huttel · No. 7:15-cv-09274
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Tyrone Peters, representing himself, sued Correction Officer Daniel Huttel, Correction Officer Jeffrey Erns, and Sergeant Duane Malark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state law. The opinion states that the court had previously granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The only remaining claim concerned alleged excessive force by Huttel, Erns, and Malark.
Earlier Counsel Request and Settlement History
Peters previously expressed interest in having the court appoint volunteer counsel. On February 21, 2020, the court granted his request for pro bono counsel because the surviving claim was likely to be substantial and counsel could help clarify the issues and prepare the examination of witnesses. The case was later discontinued after the parties told the court they had settled. Peters withdrew from the negotiated settlement, and the court denied the defendants’ motion to enforce it because the agreement had not been put in writing.
Ruling
At a September 9, 2022 pretrial conference, Peters expressed interest in continuing the action. The court stated that a five-to-six-day jury trial was scheduled to begin on May 15, 2023, with a final pretrial conference set for December 8, 2022. Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Peters’s renewed application for the court to request pro bono counsel. The court cautioned that it relies on volunteer attorneys, that finding one could take a substantial amount of time, and that no attorney was guaranteed to accept the case. It also stated that the litigation would continue at a normal pace and that Peters should be prepared to proceed without a lawyer. The Clerk was directed to mail Peters a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.