LaPorte v. Fisher

Second Circuit

LaPorte v. Fisher

692 F. App'x 649

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2017

Docket15-3218-pr

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 692 F. App'x 649 (LaPorte v. Fisher) 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

LaPorte v. Fisher, 692 F. App'x 649 (2d Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Hector LaPorte, pro se, appeals from the district court’s September 22, 2015 judgment dismissing his complaint, entered after a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee Corrections Sergeant Fisher on LaPorte’s excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

LaPorte’s only argument on appeal is that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. Because this is a civil case in which LaPorte does not face the prospect of imprisonment, however, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply, and LaPorte’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. See Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 453 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981).

We have considered LaPorte’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. 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 Hector LaPorte, pro se, appeals from the district court’s September 22, 2015 judgment dismissing his complaint, entered after a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee Corrections Sergeant Fisher on LaPorte’s excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

LaPorte’s only argument on appeal is that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. Because this is a civil case in which LaPorte does not face the prospect of imprisonment, however, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply, and LaPorte’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. See Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum, 722 F.3d 444, 453 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Coven, 662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981).

We have considered LaPorte’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

692 F. App'x 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laporte-v-fisher-ca2-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack