Bonneau v. LaManna

Filing 44

ORDER: The undersigned is in receipt of Petitioner's letter dated May 13, 2020, requesting the Court to appoint counsel for Petitioner. ECF No. 43. On August 6, 2019, the undersigned denied Petitioners prior oral request for the appointmen t of counsel based on Petitioner's inability to satisfy the Hodge factors.2 ECF No. 30. Petitioner asserts that his legal assistant has regrettably passed away due to COVID-19, but this does not address the Court's prior finding that Pet itioner had not shown that his claims are likely be successful on the merits, its lack of information about Petitioner's attempt to obtain counsel, and its prior finding that Petitioner is capable of handling this case without assistance at t his time. For that reason, Petitioner's request for counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The undersigned is also in receipt of Petitioner's letter dated February 4, 2020, appearing to request that the undersigned reconsider Judge Seibel& #039;s October 1, 2019, order. ECF No. 42 ("Judge Seibel over ruling [sic] of my objection stating, "the pre-sentence report is confidential under New York Criminal Procedure law §390.50" [] is misplaced..."). First, motion s for reconsideration must be made within fourteen (14) days of the Court's ruling. Local Rule 6.3. The time for formally requesting reconsideration had passed by the time of Petitioner's February 4, 2020, letter. Second, Judge Seibel st ated in her order "Should the Magistrate Judge findanything in the [pre sentence] report to be material to her Report and Recommendation, I am sure she will either share it with Petitioner in advance or find another way to convey the necessar y information to Petitioner to ensure he has the opportunity to be heard on the matter." ECF No. 39. The undersigned affirms that, if it is determined that the pre sentence report is necessary to producing a Report and Recommendation on Petiti oners claims, the Court will find a way to convey the necessary information to Petitioner and allow Petitioner sufficient time to prepare a reply. A copy of this order was mailed by chambers to pro se Petitioner of record. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 6/4/2020) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rj)

Case 7:18-cv-02228-CS-LMS Document 44 Filed 06/04/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JUDE BONNEAU,
Petitioner,
- against –

18 CV 2228 (CS) (LMS)
ORDER

JAMIE LAMANNA,
Respondent.

THE HONORABLE LISA MARGARET SMITH, U.S.M.J. 1
The undersigned is in receipt of Petitioner's letter dated May 13, 2020, requesting the
Court to appoint counsel for Petitioner. ECF No. 43. On August 6, 2019, the undersigned
denied Petitioner’s prior oral request for the appointment of counsel based on Petitioner’s
inability to satisfy the Hodge factors. 2 ECF No. 30. Petitioner asserts that his legal assistant has
regrettably passed away due to COVID-19, but this does not address the Court’s prior finding
that Petitioner had not shown that his claims are likely be successful on the merits, its lack of
information about Petitioner’s attempt to obtain counsel, and its prior finding that Petitioner is
capable of handling this case without assistance at this time. For that reason, Petitioner’s request
for counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The undersigned is also in receipt of Petitioner’s letter dated February 4, 2020, appearing
to request that the undersigned reconsider Judge Seibel’s October 1, 2019, order. ECF No. 42
(“Judge Seibel over ruling [sic] of my objection stating, ‘the pre-sentence report is confidential

The Honorable Judge Cathy Seibel referred this matter to the undersigned on April 12, 2018.
ECF No. 7.
1

2

Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986), provides the standard courts in this
circuit use to determine whether the appointment of counsel in a civil matter is appropriate.
1

Case 7:18-cv-02228-CS-LMS Document 44 Filed 06/04/20 Page 2 of 2

under New York Criminal Procedure law §390.50” [] is misplaced . . .”). First, motions for
reconsideration must be made within fourteen (14) days of the Court’s ruling. Local Rule 6.3.
The time for formally requesting reconsideration had passed by the time of Petitioner’s February
4, 2020, letter. Second, Judge Seibel stated in her order “Should the Magistrate Judge find
anything in the [presentence] report to be material to her Report and Recommendation, I am sure
she will either share it with Petitioner in advance or find another way to convey the necessary
information to Petitioner to ensure he has the opportunity to be heard on the matter.” ECF No.
39. The undersigned affirms that, if it is determined that the presentence report is necessary to
producing a Report and Recommendation on Petitioner’s claims, the Court will find a way to
convey the necessary information to Petitioner and allow Petitioner sufficient time to prepare a
reply. A copy of this order was mailed by chambers to pro se Petitioner of record.

Dated: June 4, 2020
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED,

_____________________________________
Lisa Margaret Smith
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York

2