Dubose v. Jiminez
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-02124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dubose v. Jiminez, Judge Briccetti denied counsel without prejudice and extended Dubose’s deadline to oppose defendants’ partial dismissal motion.
Tyrek Dubose’s request for court-appointed counsel was denied without prejudice, and his deadline to oppose the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss was extended. The defendants received additional time to file any reply.
What happened
In Dubose v. Jiminez, Tyrek Dubose, who was representing himself and could not afford the filing fee, asked the court to appoint a lawyer and requested more time to respond to the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
The court said it considered the case’s type and complexity, the merits of Dubose’s claims, and his ability to present the case. It did not find exceptional circumstances requiring a court-appointed lawyer at that time. The court also extended Dubose’s response deadline to December 28, 2022, and set January 11, 2023, as the deadline for any reply by the defendants.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the request for a lawyer without prejudice, meaning Dubose could renew it later, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal. The court did not rule on the partial motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Dubose v. Jiminez · No. 7:22-cv-02124
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 22, 2022
Background
Tyrek Dubose brought the action on March 14, 2022, and was representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee. On September 30, 2022, the defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. The court had previously set November 28, 2022, as Dubose’s deadline to oppose that motion and December 12, 2022, as the defendants’ deadline for any reply.
On November 17, 2022, Dubose moved for appointment of counsel and asked for a 30-day extension to oppose the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
Appointment of Counsel
The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Dubose’s claims, and his ability to present the case. Applying the statute governing appointment of counsel for parties proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at that time.
The court therefore denied without prejudice Dubose’s request for appointment of counsel. The order states that the request could be renewed at an appropriate time in the future.
Deadline Extension and Appeal Certification
The court extended Dubose’s deadline to oppose the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss to December 28, 2022. Any reply by the defendants was due January 11, 2023.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate Dubose’s motion, and chambers was directed to mail him a copy of the order.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice the motion for appointment of counsel and granted Dubose’s request for additional time to oppose the partial motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss or the merits of Dubose’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.