Bonneau v. LaManna
| Jude Bonneau |
| Jamie LaManna |
| 1:2018cv02228 |
| March 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Dutchess |
| Cathy Seibel |
| Lisa Margaret Smith |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
49
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 47 Report and Recommendations. ENDORSEMENT: No objections to this Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") have been received, and accordingly I review it for clear error. See Lewis v. Zon, 573 F.Supp.2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y.2008); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y.1985); Fed. R. Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note (b). Finding no error, clear or otherwise, I adopt the R&R as the decision of the Court. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice. Because jurists of reason would agree that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). I certify pursuant to 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 purposes of appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 8/27/2023) (rro)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER re: 45 Letter filed by Jude Bonneau. The undersigned is in receipt of Petitioner's letter dated November 14, 2020, which was received and docketed on November 30, 2020. ECF No. 45. The letter is Petitioner's third request for appointment of counsel. Petitioner's two previous requests for appointment of counsel were denied. In an order dated August 6, 2019, the Honorable Lisa Margaret Smith denied Petitioner's first request for appointment of counsel, which w as made orally during an August 6, 2019 status conference. Magistrate Judge Smith determined that Petitioner had not satisfied the factors set forth in Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986), the case that provides the standar d courts in this Circuit use to determine whether appointment of counsel in a civil matter is appropriate. See ECF No. 30 at 5-7. Subsequently, in an order dated June 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Smith denied Petitioner's second request for the appointment of counsel, which was submitted in writing. See ECF No. 43 (Petitioner's request for counsel); ECF No. 44 (order denying request for counsel). The basis for Petitioner's second request for counsel was that his legal assistant had, sadly, passed away due to COVID-19. See ECF No. 43. Magistrate Judge Smith's June 4, 2020 order explained, however, that Petitioner's second request did not address the Court's prior finding that Petitioner had not shown that h is claims are likely to be successful on the merits, its lack of information about Petitioner's attempt to obtain counsel, and its prior finding that Petitioner is capable to handling this case without assistance at this time. ECF No. 44. In his most recent application seeking counsel, Petitioner reiterates the unfortunate fact that his legal assistant passed away due to COVID-19. As with the May 2020 application, Petitioner again fails to offer any explanation for how he now satisfies the Hodge factors for appointment of counsel. Indeed, this most recent letter simply restates the same request that Magistrate Judge Smith previously denied. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Smith's prior rulings on this issue, see ECF Nos. 30, 44, Petitioner's third request for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se Petitioner. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 12/22/2020) (nb) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
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)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER: Therefore, the record accurately reflects receipt of the sealed document. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order along with an updated docket sheet to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith on 1/23/2020) (ks) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
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 New York Southern 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: Bonneau v. LaManna | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Jude Bonneau | |
| 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: Jamie LaManna | |
| 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.
