Davidson v. Office of Court Administration

S.D. New York

Davidson v. Office of Court Administration

DecidedFebruary 24, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-08936

StatusUnknown

This text of Davidson v. Office of Court Administration (Davidson v. Office of Court Administration) 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

Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

usDCSDXY—st—~=«@Y: DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | DOC #: _.. □□ cen ne enn cen nen □□ nee nnn ee een X DATE FILED: 2panms | tt - RONALD DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8936 (PGG) (VF) -against- ORDER OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION; LAWRENCE MARKS; ALIA RAZZAQ; TRACEY FERDINAND; JOHN SULLIVAN; JOHN DOE; and DENIS KEHOE, Defendants.

VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court assign pro bono counsel for the purposes of filing an interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 79. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. The Court previously appointed pro bono counsel to assist Plaintiff in filing his second amended complaint. See ECF No. 55; ECF No. 97. Plaintiff now requests pro bono counsel to assist in filing an interlocutory appeal, but Plaintiff does not indicate what order he intends to appeal. ECF No. 79. Interlocutory appeals, such as the one Plaintiff intends to file, “are ‘strongly disfavored’ in the federal system.” Flores v. Nat’] Football League, No. 22-CV-0871 (VEC), 2024 WL 50238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2024) (quoting In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Secs. & Derivative Litig., 986 F. Supp. 2d 524, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify for appellate review any interlocutory order that (1) “involves a controlling question of law,” (2) “as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (3) where “‘an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the

ultimate termination of the litigation.” There has been no such order issued in this case. In fact, the case has not proceeded beyond the initial stages, as Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. See Flores, 2024 WL 50238, at *2 (explaining that interlocutory appeals are “strictly reserved for exceptional cases” and are “especially rare in early stages of litigation.”) (quoting In re Facebook, Inc., 986 F. Supp. at 533). There thus is no basis for appointing pro bono counsel because Plaintiff has no basis upon which to take an interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 79. SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2025 New York, New York tra AL VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge

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

usDCSDXY—st—~=«@Y: DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | DOC #: _.. □□ cen ne enn cen nen □□ nee nnn ee een X DATE FILED: 2panms | tt - RONALD DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8936 (PGG) (VF) -against- ORDER OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION; LAWRENCE MARKS; ALIA RAZZAQ; TRACEY FERDINAND; JOHN SULLIVAN; JOHN DOE; and DENIS KEHOE, Defendants.

VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court assign pro bono counsel for the purposes of filing an interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 79. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. The Court previously appointed pro bono counsel to assist Plaintiff in filing his second amended complaint. See ECF No. 55; ECF No. 97. Plaintiff now requests pro bono counsel to assist in filing an interlocutory appeal, but Plaintiff does not indicate what order he intends to appeal. ECF No. 79. Interlocutory appeals, such as the one Plaintiff intends to file, “are ‘strongly disfavored’ in the federal system.” Flores v. Nat’] Football League, No. 22-CV-0871 (VEC), 2024 WL 50238, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2024) (quoting In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Secs. & Derivative Litig., 986 F. Supp. 2d 524, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district court may certify for appellate review any interlocutory order that (1) “involves a controlling question of law,” (2) “as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (3) where “‘an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the

ultimate termination of the litigation.” There has been no such order issued in this case. In fact, the case has not proceeded beyond the initial stages, as Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. See Flores, 2024 WL 50238, at *2 (explaining that interlocutory appeals are “strictly reserved for exceptional cases” and are “especially rare in early stages of litigation.”) (quoting In re Facebook, Inc., 986 F. Supp. at 533). There thus is no basis for appointing pro bono counsel because Plaintiff has no basis upon which to take an interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 79. SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2025 New York, New York tra AL VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davidson v. Office of Court Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davidson-v-office-of-court-administration-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack