Brock v. CVS Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Judge Briccetti denied Terrell K. Brock’s counsel request without prejudice, stayed Officer Formoso’s service deadline, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Terrell K. Brock was affected by the denial of appointed counsel, the continued hold on Officer Jose Luis Formoso’s service deadline, and the denial of fee-free status for an appeal. The defendants were affected by the court’s plan to arrange service after screening the third amended complaint.
What happened
In Brock v. CVS Corporation, Terrell K. Brock, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, asked the court to appoint a lawyer. The order also addressed his questions about serving the defendants.
The court kept the deadline for serving Officer Jose Luis Formoso on hold until further notice. After receiving and reviewing Brock’s third amended complaint, the court said it would set a new service deadline and direct the clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to serve newly identified defendants. Brock did not need to take action to arrange service.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Brock’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning Brock could renew it later. The court also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Brock fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Brock v. CVS Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-04014
- Vincent Briccetti
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
Terrell K. Brock filed this action on May 16, 2022, and was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. He previously asked the court to appoint counsel, and the court denied that request without prejudice to renewal. On December 1, 2022, Brock submitted a letter asking how to serve the defendants and by what deadline, along with another motion asking the court to appoint counsel.
Service of process
The court continued to stay, or place on hold, the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for serving Officer Jose Luis Formoso. The court said that, after it received and screened Brock’s third amended complaint, it would set a service deadline under that rule. Because Brock was proceeding without paying filing fees, he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to complete service. The court stated that it would direct the clerk to issue summonses for newly identified defendants and provide the Marshals Service with the materials needed for service. Brock did not need to do anything to arrange service.
Appointment of counsel and appeal status
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court considered the type and complexity of the case, the merits of Brock’s claims, and his ability to present the case. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found that exceptional circumstances did not warrant appointing counsel at that time. The court therefore denied Brock’s request for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal at an appropriate time in the future.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It consequently denied Brock permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The clerk was instructed to terminate the counsel motion, and the chambers was directed to mail Brock a copy of the order. This order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.