Porath v. City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Porath v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cave denied without prejudice requests for a conference and appointed counsel while awaiting defendants’ dismissal-motion plans.
David K. Porath, Parole Officer Akaneme, the City of New York, the Director of the Bellevue Shelter System, and their counsel.
What happened
In David K. Porath v. City of New York, the court responded to letters from Plaintiff David K. Porath about the case and defendants’ plans to seek permission to file dismissal motions.
The court treated one letter as opposing Parole Officer Akaneme’s request to seek dismissal of the amended complaint. It said the City still had until March 9, 2023, to state whether it also intended to seek dismissal, and would consider Porath’s arguments after receiving the City’s letter. The court denied without prejudice Porath’s requests for an in-person conference and a video conference with defense counsel.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also denied without prejudice Porath’s request for appointed counsel because he had not made the required showing. The order did not decide whether defendants would be allowed to file dismissal motions.
The detailed version
- Porath v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01302
- John Cronan
- Mar. 7, 2023
Background
Plaintiff David K. Porath sent letters to the court at docket entries 45 and 46. Parole Officer Akaneme had sent a letter asking for permission to move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The City of New York still had until March 9, 2023, to state whether it intended to seek dismissal as well.
Rulings
The court construed Porath’s letter at docket entry 45 as opposing Akaneme’s request. The court stated that, after receiving the City’s letter, it would consider Porath’s arguments in deciding whether to grant defendants permission to file motions to dismiss at that time. The order therefore did not grant or deny permission to file those motions.
The court denied without prejudice Porath’s request for an in-person conference with the court and a video conference with defendants’ counsel. It also denied without prejudice his request for appointment of counsel. The court found that Porath had not made the required showing for the court to request that a volunteer attorney represent him, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and decisions discussing that standard.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed conference and counsel requests and set out the next step concerning possible dismissal motions. It did not resolve the claims in the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk was directed to mail Porath a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.