Triplett v. Reardon
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-01064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Triplett v. Reardon, Judge Cave denied reconsideration and discovery, and denied without prejudice a renewed request for counsel.
Omar Triplett’s requests for reconsideration, a deposition, and appointed counsel were affected. P. Reardon and Assistant Attorney General Priscilla Steward were involved in the underlying and discovery matters described in the order.
What happened
Triplett v. Reardon concerns Omar Triplett’s objections to an earlier order involving missing transcripts from his jury trials, his request to depose Assistant Attorney General Priscilla Steward, and his renewed request for an attorney.
The court denied Triplett’s request for reconsideration because he identified no overlooked controlling decisions or information and showed no exceptional circumstances. It also denied his request to depose Steward because he did not show good cause or explain how her testimony would support his petition.
Sarah L. Cave, the United States magistrate judge, denied without prejudice Triplett’s renewed request for counsel because he had not shown that his position was likely to have enough substance to justify pro bono representation.
The detailed version
- Triplett v. Reardon · No. 1:20-cv-01064
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 27, 2022
Background
Omar Triplett filed a letter addressing three matters. First, he objected to the court’s August 24, 2022 order, which had deferred judgment on his requests for a new trial, a reconstruction hearing, an outside investigation, reversal, credit for time served, or bail in connection with Respondent P. Reardon’s inability to locate transcripts from Triplett’s jury trials. Triplett also sought permission to serve deposition subpoenas on the two New York State Supreme Court justices who presided over his trials, his appointed trial lawyer, and his appellate lawyer.
Second, Triplett asked to depose Priscilla Steward, the Assistant Attorney General representing Reardon in this matter. Third, he renewed his request for an attorney of his choice.
Court’s Rulings
The court treated Triplett’s objection as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reconsider the August 24 order. Reconsideration is extraordinary relief generally available only when the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked, or shows exceptional circumstances. The court found that Triplett had shown neither. His objection was therefore DENIED.
The court also DENIED Triplett’s request to depose Steward. In a petition challenging custody or detention, discovery is not automatic. Under the applicable rule, the petitioner must obtain permission and show “good cause,” meaning specific allegations indicating that further factual development may establish entitlement to relief. The court found that Triplett did not explain why he wanted Steward’s deposition and had not shown how her testimony could support his petition. The court also noted that Steward had already described her efforts to locate the transcripts.
Finally, the court DENIED without prejudice Triplett’s renewed request for counsel. The court stated that it may appoint pro bono counsel for someone who cannot afford a lawyer when that person’s position appears likely to have substance. It found that Triplett had not made that showing at that time.
Disposition and Effect
The order denied the reconsideration objection and the deposition request, and denied without prejudice the renewed request for counsel. The clerk was directed to mail Triplett a copy of the order. This order addressed those requests and did not decide the underlying petition on its merits. The opinion identifies Sarah L. Cave as the United States magistrate judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.