Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 16, 2023

Nunez-Polanco v. Capra

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04475
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Nunez-Polanco v. Capra, Judge Swain denied appointed counsel as moot and denied fee-free appeal status after the action was dismissed.

Who this affects

Claudio Amauris Nunez-Polanco's request for appointed counsel and his ability to appeal this order without paying filing fees were affected.

What happened

Nunez-Polanco v. Capra was brought by Claudio Amauris Nunez-Polanco, who was incarcerated and represented himself. He had asked the court to appoint a lawyer.

Before deciding that request, the court had dismissed the action for failure to state a claim after allowing an amended complaint. The court then treated the request for a lawyer as no longer relevant because the case was closed.

Judge Swain denied the request for appointed counsel as moot. She also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Nunez-Polanco v. Capra · No. 1:22-cv-04475
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 16, 2023

Background

Claudio Amauris Nunez-Polanco, who was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. After allowing him to file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the action on February 27, 2023, for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Nunez-Polanco submitted a motion asking the court to appoint counsel. The motion was dated February 27, 2023, and the court received it on March 1, 2023. The court noted that, under the prison mailbox rule, a prisoner's filing generally is treated as filed when given to prison officials for mailing. Because the action had already been dismissed and was closed, the court denied the motion for appointment of counsel as moot, meaning the request no longer presented a live issue.

Appeal Filing-Fee Status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for appointment of counsel as moot and denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order. This order did not reconsider the earlier dismissal of the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.