Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2024

Louime v. Camama

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:21-cv-09594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Louime v. Pressley, Judge Briccetti postponed a case-management conference because appointed pro bono counsel had not appeared.

Who this affects

David Louime, his appointed pro bono counsel, and the defendants and their counsel who would attend the case-management conference.

What happened

Louime v. Pressley concerns a plaintiff who was proceeding without a lawyer and had been granted appointed pro bono counsel. The court had scheduled a case-management conference for March 28, 2024.

The docket still did not show an appearance by pro bono counsel. The court therefore moved the conference to April 11, 2024, at noon.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Louime v. Camama · No. 7:21-cv-09594
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Mar. 26, 2024

Background

David Louime was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees. In an earlier order, the court granted his request for appointed pro bono counsel and scheduled a case-management conference for March 28, 2024. The court had stated that it would postpone the conference if pro bono counsel had not appeared.

Court’s action

The docket did not show that pro bono counsel had appeared for Louime. The court therefore ordered that the March 28 conference be adjourned, meaning postponed, to April 11, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. If pro bono counsel had appeared by then, all counsel were required to attend in person at the White Plains courthouse, Courtroom 620.

Appeal and effect

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed scheduling and counsel-related matters; it did not resolve the claims against the correction-officer defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.