Harvey v. Farber

Second Circuit

Harvey v. Farber

646 F. App'x 116

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 21, 2016

DocketNo. 13-2551

StatusPublished

This text of 646 F. App'x 116 (Harvey v. Farber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harvey v. Farber, 646 F. App'x 116 (2d Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Harvey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s entry of judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims following a jury trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Harvey has provided us with no reason to disturb the District Court’s judgment. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. It is well established, however, that, except when faced with the prospect of imprisonment, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in a civil ease. See, e.g., Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Bimbaun, 722 F.3d 444, 453 (2d Cir.2013); United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir.1981).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Harvey, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s entry of judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims following a jury trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Harvey has provided us with no reason to disturb the District Court’s judgment. The only issue he raises on appeal is whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. It is well established, however, that, except when faced with the prospect of imprisonment, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply in a civil ease. See, e.g., Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Bimbaun, 722 F.3d 444, 453 (2d Cir.2013); United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir.1981).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

646 F. App'x 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-farber-ca2-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack