Fabricio v. Lee

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [Oe SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK pocum weep en ELECTRON OA) yy req EDERICK FABRICIO, DOC SLED □□ Plaintiff, : DATE te, =| ye} □ ? HW DATE Piles. Sy yf □ Poot af wttenn Lt 1 v. ORDER

SGT. MILLER; C.0. CHASE; C.O. ERNS; 16 CV 8731 (VB) CARLSON; C.O. COREY; C.O. PHILLIPS; C.O. BROKAW; and C.O. LORDE-GRAY, Defendants. tt a tnt A ty As discussed at an on-the-record conference today, which counsel for defendants attended in person and plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, attended by telephone, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 1. For the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff's requests for additional discovery are DENIED. Discovery is closed. 2. By January 3, 2020, plaintiff shall file a request for the Court to seek pro bono counsel on his behalf. 3, The next conference is scheduled for January 30, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. Defense counsel shall make all arrangements necessary for plaintiff to appear by telephone. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff at the address on the docket. The Court certifies under 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). Dated: December 20, 2019 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge