Pitt v. County of Rockland
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-08356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pitt v. County of Rockland, Judge Briccetti denied counsel and discovery requests while keeping defendants’ dismissal motion pending.
Malcolm Pitt was denied appointed counsel without prejudice, denied discovery for the time being, and denied permission to appeal this order without prepaying fees. The defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Pitt v. County of Rockland, Malcolm Pitt, who was representing himself, opposed the defendants’ request to dismiss his first amended complaint and asked for a lawyer and discovery materials.
Pitt requested documents and video concerning an incident involving defendants and Darius Williams, who is not a party to the case. The court also addressed what materials it would consider when deciding the pending dismissal request.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied Pitt’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, denied discovery for the time being, and declined to convert the dismissal request into a request for summary judgment. The defendants’ reply remained due June 27, 2023, and the court denied fee-free appeal status for this order.
The detailed version
- Pitt v. County of Rockland · No. 7:22-cv-08356
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 14, 2023
Background
Defendants Rockland County, Sergeant Ob lenis, Sergeant Lowe, Correction Officer Karney, Correction Officer G. Vandunk, Officer Figueroa, and Officer Spence had moved to dismiss Malcolm Pitt’s first amended complaint. Pitt was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. After being moved to Franklin Correctional Facility, Pitt received an extension of time to respond. He then opposed the dismissal motion, requested appointed volunteer counsel, and sought discovery materials, including records about Darius Williams, grievances concerning a July 22, 2022 incident, and video footage involving defendants Lowe and Vandunk and Williams.
Rulings
The court denied Pitt’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice, meaning he could renew the request later. The court considered the type and complexity of the case, the apparent merits of Pitt’s claims, and his ability to present the case, but found no exceptional circumstances requiring counsel at that time.
The court denied Pitt’s discovery request at that time. It stated that, if the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, Pitt would be permitted to seek relevant documents and evidence during discovery.
The court also declined to convert the pending motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. It therefore would not rely on outside documents unless they were attached to, incorporated into, or integral to the first amended complaint. Because Pitt was representing himself, the court would consider exhibits attached to his opposition to the extent they were consistent with the allegations and claims in the first amended complaint.
The defendants’ reply, if any, remained due June 27, 2023. The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pitt permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The clerk was instructed to terminate Pitt’s application for appointed counsel. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed appointed counsel, discovery, the materials the court would consider on a dismissal motion, and appeal-fee status without deciding the merits of Pitt’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.