Emery v. Pullen
| Sonja Emery |
| Timethea Pullen |
| 3:2022cv01003 |
| August 5, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
RESPONSE to Administrative Remedies, filed by Sonja Emery. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 17
RESPONSE, filed by Sonja Emery. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 16
PETITIONER RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND MOTION NOT TO DISMISS, by Sonja Emery, filed by Sonja Emery. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER denying #13 Petitioner's renewed motion to appoint counsel. Petitioner has again requested an appointment of pro bono counsel, representing that the medical issue which is the subject of her habeas petition prevents her from litigating the case herself. Specifically, she contends that she requires assistance when reading and writing. As noted above, see ECF No. 7, "there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel in habeas corpus proceedings." Green v. Abrams, 984 F.2d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, in a habeas corpus proceeding, as in any civil matter involving an indigent litigant, a court's decision to appoint pro bono counsel is discretionary. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Office No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986); Smalls v. Faneuff, No. 3:17-CV-1739 (CSH), 2018 WL 7958890 at *1 (D. Conn. July 3, 2018). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the "routine appointment of counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989). Before an appointment of pro bono counsel for an indigent litigant is considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that she tried, but was unable, to secure counsel. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. In addition, the district court must "determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see also Cooper, 877 F.2d at 171.Although the Court sympathizes with Petitioner's difficulty litigating the case while incarcerated, the Court cannot conclude that an appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted here. Once again, Petitioner has not indicated whether she has attempted to secure counsel on her own. By her own account, she does not specifically require the assistance of an attorney; rather, she appears to require clerical assistance with the discrete tasks of reading and writing. Petitioner concedes that she has obtained such assistance from fellow inmates in the past, and she fails to substantiate her assertion that continuing to obtain assistance from fellow inmates would put her in unspecified danger. Moreover, Respondents' motion to dismiss presents strong arguments that Petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and has in fact obtained much of the medical care that is the subject of her habeas petition. For the purpose of evaluating whether Petitioner's claim warrants an appointment of pro bono counsel, the Court cannot conclude that she has demonstrated the necessary merit. While the Court is mindful of Petitioner's difficulty litigating the case, the Second Circuit has explained that "[v]olunteer lawyer time is a precious commodity," and this Court is bound by that instruction. Accordingly, Petitioner's renewed request for counsel is denied. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/12/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #11 Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Rule 5(e). Specifically, the sealing of Petitioner's medical information is supported by the clear and compelling reason of protecting her privacy. Moreover, the requested sealing is narrowly tailored, as it requests sealing of only Petitioner's medical information and the sealed filings correspond with redacted public filings at ECF No. 10. The Clerk is directed to maintain the filings at ECF No. 12 under seal. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/9/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 12
Sealed Document: Unredacted Memorandum and Exhibits A through D by Timethea Pullen re #11 MOTION to Seal Unredacted Memorandum and Exhibits A through D . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Dukate Declaration, #2 Exhibit B - Part 1, #3 Exhibit B - Part 2, #4 Exhibit C - Magnusson Declaration, #5 Exhibit D - August 31, 2022 record)(McConaghy, Michelle)
|
|
Filing 11
MOTION to Seal Unredacted Memorandum and Exhibits A through D by Timethea Pullen. (McConaghy, Michelle)
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION to Dismiss and Response to Order to Show Cause by Timethea Pullen.Responses due by 9/28/2022 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit E - Notice to Pro Se Litigant)(McConaghy, Michelle)
|
|
Filing 13
Request for appointment of Counsel, by Sonja Emery. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope)(Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER. The Government shall include, as an exhibit to its response to the petition due September 9, 2022, a copy of the optometrist report from Petitioner's August 4, 2022, visit referenced in ECF No. #8 . If the report contains confidential health information, the Government shall move to file it under seal. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 09/02/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 8
Requesting medical report, by Sonja Emery. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #3 Petitioner's Motion to Seal; denying #3 Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel. Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, seeking a Court order redesignating her to home confinement so she can obtain medical care related to an eye condition. ECF No. #1 . She has requested permission to file her medical records under seal. This request is granted pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), as the sealing of Petitioner's medical records is supported by the clear and compelling reason of protecting her privacy, and the requested sealing is narrowly tailored, as it requests sealing of only Petitioner's medical records. The Clerk is directed to maintain the medical records filed at ECF No. 2 under seal.Petitioner also requests an appointment of pro bono counsel. "[I]t is well settled in the Second Circuit and elsewhere that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel in habeas corpus proceedings." Green v. Abrams, 984 F.2d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, in a habeas corpus proceeding, as in any civil matter involving an indigent litigant, a court's decision to appoint pro bono counsel is discretionary. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Office No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011) ("A party has no constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case." (citation omitted)); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Broad discretion lies with the district judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel[.]" (citation omitted)); Smalls v. Faneuff, No. 3:17-CV-1739 (CSH), 2018 WL 7958890 at *1 (D. Conn. July 3, 2018) ("[I]n a... habeas corpus proceeding, as in other civil matters, [d]istrict courts exercise substantial discretion in deciding whether to appoint counsel[.]" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) (permitting district courts to appoint counsel to a person "seeking relief" under 2241 who is "financially eligible" whenever "the interests of justice so require."). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the "routine appointment of counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989). Before an appointment of pro bono counsel for an indigent litigant is considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that she tried, but was unable, to secure counsel. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see also Smalls, 2018 WL 7958890 at *1 (acknowledging that the habeas petitioner made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain counsel on his own). In addition, the district court must "determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see also Cooper, 877 F.2d at 171. The Second Circuit has noted that appointment of counsel is particularly unwarranted where an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. U.S. ex rel. Cadogan v. LaVallee, 502 F.2d 824, 826 (2d Cir. 1974).The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by parties when litigating an action without an attorney, particularly when that party is incarcerated. However, the Court cannot conclude that appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted here. Petitioner has not indicated whether she has attempted to secure counsel on her own, nor has she presented evidence that she is "financially eligible" as contemplated by 3006A(a)(2)(B). Moreover, at this early stage of the case, Petitioner has not demonstrated that her claims have sufficient legal merit. Similarly, the Court cannot yet assess whether an evidentiary hearing will be required to resolve Petitioner's claims. Accordingly, Petitioner's request to appoint counsel is denied, without prejudice to refile at a later stage of the case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/10/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. By September 9, 2022, Respondent shall file a response to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. #1 . Show Cause Response due by 9/9/2022. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/10/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
|
Filing fee received from Sonja Emery: $5.00, receipt number #25461. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/5/2022.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/5/2022.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION to Seal Medical Records, MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Sonja Emery. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 2
Sealed Document: Medical Records by Sonja Emery re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 1
PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Sonja Emery. (Attachments: #1 Request for Withdrawal of Inmate's Personal Funds, #2 Envelope)(Bozek, M.)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Emery v. Pullen | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Sonja Emery | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Timethea Pullen | |
| Represented By: | Michelle Lynn McConaghy |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
