Medina v. New York State Division of Parole
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-03763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In Medina v. City of New York, Judge Broderick denied a pause in the case and denied counsel without prejudice while dismissal motions remained pending.
Anthony Medina’s requests to pause the case and obtain appointed counsel were denied; the defendants’ motions to dismiss remained pending.
What happened
In Medina v. City of New York, Anthony Medina asked the court to pause the case, delay ruling on the defendants’ dismissal motions, or appoint a lawyer. A letter described his reported vision, mobility, and hand problems and difficulty preparing court papers without assistance.
The court denied the request to pause the case because Medina had not identified circumstances beyond those previously considered when he received an extension. It also denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice because the case was still at an early stage and the court could not yet assess its merits.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick said the defendants’ dismissal motions were fully briefed and that a decision would be issued later. Medina remained unrepresented, and the clerk was directed to mail him the order.
The detailed version
- Medina v. New York State Division of Parole · No. 1:20-cv-03763
- Vernon Broderick
- July 18, 2023
Background
Anthony Medina, proceeding without a lawyer, sent Judge Broderick a June 27, 2023 letter seeking to place the case on hold, prevent the court from ruling on the defendants’ dispositive motions, and/or obtain appointed counsel. The letter was submitted by Cynthia L. Ortiz, identified as Medina’s home aide, on Medina’s behalf. It described Medina’s reported legal blindness, injuries, wheelchair use, need for home care, and hand and arm conditions. According to the letter, these circumstances prevented him from accessing equipment and preparing responses to the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The court noted that Medina had raised the same circumstances in a January 10, 2022 letter, when the court granted him additional time to oppose the defendants’ motions. The court had previously stated that it would not grant further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances.
Rulings
The court denied Medina’s request to hold the case in abeyance, meaning to pause it. The court found that he had not raised circumstances beyond those it had already considered when granting the earlier extension.
The court denied Medina’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice. It explained that appointment of counsel depends in part on the case’s merits, the plaintiff’s ability to pay, efforts to obtain a lawyer, the availability of counsel, and the plaintiff’s ability to handle the case without assistance. The court did not express a view on the merits because the case was still at the motion-to-dismiss stage, which was too early for the court to assess them. The court stated that Medina could renew his request if the case survived the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The court did not decide the defendants’ motions to dismiss in this order. It stated that those motions were fully briefed and that a decision would be forthcoming. The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Medina.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.