Brock v. Avanzado

S.D. New York

Brock v. Avanzado

DecidedApril 6, 2020

Docket7:19-cv-05891

StatusUnknown

This text of Brock v. Avanzado (Brock v. Avanzado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brock v. Avanzado, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

| i USDC sony. ee, | POCUMany UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i ELEC? mE Sanaa eee nn enennrnnneeenen fees eoNcALLy — W DATE oi nt VINCENT BROCK, : [Dat Fiten: lora— | Plaintiff, OES i ORDER □□ DR. AVANZADO, DR. PARIKH, R.N. : HANEWOOD, DR. ZIMMELUS, R.N. : 19 CV 5891 (VB) STEVENS, R.N. AWAKA, and R.N. ANN : MILANES, : Defendants. : a a □ SK Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion dated March 23, 2020, in which he requests (i) to address the Court in person, (ii) an extension of time to “perfect” his claim, and (iii) an attorney. (Doc. #46). First, to the extent plaintiff seeks a hearing in front of the Court, that request is DENIED. There is no basis for a hearing at this time. The pending fully submitted motion to dismiss will be decided on the papers in due course. Second, plaintiff's request for an extension of time “to perfect his claim” is DENIED. It is not clear what plaintiff means in this regard. In any event, plaintiff already submitted an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docs. ##40, 41), and need not take further action at this time. Finally, plaintiff’s request for the Court to seek pro bono counsel on his behalfis DENIED □ □□ WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the Court previously ordered (Docs. ##12, 38), there are no exceptional circumstances in plaintiffs case that warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). OF . course, plaintiff is always free to retain an attorney on his own. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Dated: April 6, 2020 SO ORDERED: White Plains, NY Ul Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

| i USDC sony. ee, | POCUMany UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i ELEC? mE Sanaa eee nn enennrnnneeenen fees eoNcALLy — W DATE oi nt VINCENT BROCK, : [Dat Fiten: lora— | Plaintiff, OES i ORDER □□ DR. AVANZADO, DR. PARIKH, R.N. : HANEWOOD, DR. ZIMMELUS, R.N. : 19 CV 5891 (VB) STEVENS, R.N. AWAKA, and R.N. ANN : MILANES, : Defendants. : a a □ SK Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a motion dated March 23, 2020, in which he requests (i) to address the Court in person, (ii) an extension of time to “perfect” his claim, and (iii) an attorney. (Doc. #46). First, to the extent plaintiff seeks a hearing in front of the Court, that request is DENIED. There is no basis for a hearing at this time. The pending fully submitted motion to dismiss will be decided on the papers in due course. Second, plaintiff's request for an extension of time “to perfect his claim” is DENIED. It is not clear what plaintiff means in this regard. In any event, plaintiff already submitted an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docs. ##40, 41), and need not take further action at this time. Finally, plaintiff’s request for the Court to seek pro bono counsel on his behalfis DENIED □ □□ WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the Court previously ordered (Docs. ##12, 38), there are no exceptional circumstances in plaintiffs case that warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). OF . course, plaintiff is always free to retain an attorney on his own. Chambers will mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Dated: April 6, 2020 SO ORDERED: White Plains, NY Ul Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brock v. Avanzado, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-v-avanzado-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack