Johnson v. Vercollone

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JOHNSON, BRIAN VAN NESS, TRUSTEE

BRIAN VAN NESS JOHNSON TRUST #87-83-

4504,

Plaintiff,

-against-

23-CV-7092 (LTS)

RICHARD W. VERCOLLONE (TOWN

JUSTICE); ADA CARPENTER (ADA TOWN ORDER OF DISMISSAL

OF SOUTHEAST); SHANE ROSSITER

(PUTNAM COUNTY SHERIFF); KARINE

PETINO (PUBLIC DEFENDER PUTNAM

COUNTY),

Defendants.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action concerning his state court

proceedings in Putnam County, New York. By order dated August 14, 2023, the Court granted

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For

the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint, with 30 days’ leave to file an amended

complaint that does not exceed 20 pages.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also

dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to

construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret

them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470

F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –

to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include enough

facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow

the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In

reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal

conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded

factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely

possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and his trust, the Brian Van Ness Johnson

Trust (the “Trust”). The action appears to concern two state court matters pending in Southeast

Town Court in Putnam County, New York. Plaintiff names as Defendants Town Justice Richard

Vercollone, Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) Carpenter, Putnam County Sheriff Shane

Rossiter, and Putnam County Public Defender Karine Petino. Plaintiff has submitted a

complaint, in which he includes this court’s complaint form, but he does not complete the form.

Rather, he attaches 182 pages of documents, many of which do not appear to concern his claims

against the named Defendants. The following facts are drawn from the attachments that relate to

Plaintiff’s state court matters.

The first document attached to the complaint is an April 10, 2023 court document

captioned for a Town of Southeast, Putnam County court, titled “affidavit in support of motion.”

In what appears to be an ongoing state matter, Plaintiff has sued three of the same Defendants

sued in this action, that is, Town Justice Vercollone, Sheriff Rossiter, and “Putnam Legal Aid

Society Officer,” which the Court understands to be Public Defender Petino. The affidavit

concerns the ownership of four vehicles; Plaintiff states that he “does not own a 2005 Silver

Chevy Suburban . . . a 1994 Black GMC Suburban . . . a 2005 Silver Chevy Suburban . . . [or] a

1994 Back GMC Suburban.” (ECF 1, at 9.) Plaintiff, who refers to himself in the affidavit as

“[t]he aggrieved Defendant” (id. at 10), also states he

never received a ticket on 12/03/1997 with supposed order # T221863 for failure

to answer summons. Nor did Affiant ever get via mail or in person any summons,

or tickets from anyone in reference to [eight tickets].” (Id.) Plaintiff asks the

Putnam County court to “dismiss the case sua sponte . . . and to provide factual

evidence of jurisdiction of the charges to the court over the parties, and want of a

qualified witness to the facts of the matters before the court.

(Id.)

The remaining documents do not appear to relate to the Putnam County court proceeding

or the named Defendants. Several of the documents concern Plaintiff’s trust. Plaintiff does not

detail any injuries he sustained or the relief he seeks. Although Plaintiff directs the Court to his

attached documents for this information, the Court is unable to locate any attachments to the

complaint relevant to his injuries or the type of relief he seeks.

DISCUSSION

A. Proceeding Pro Se on Behalf of a Trust

Corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other artificial entities cannot proceed pro se.

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)

(noting that “lower courts have uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that “parties

may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” does not allow corporations,

partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court otherwise than through a licensed

attorney”) (citations omitted); see also Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22

(2d Cir. 1983) (noting that “it is established that a corporation, which is an artificial entity that

can only act through agents, cannot proceed pro se”). “A trust is deemed an artificial entity for

the purposes of the rule barring a nonlawyer trustee from representing the interests of the trust.”

Bell v. S. Bay Eur. Corp., 486 F. Supp. 2d 257, 259 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Thus, the claims brought

on behalf of the Trust are dismissed without prejudice to the Trust retaining counsel and

initiating its own action.

B. Section 1983

Plaintiff brings claims against a town justice, an ADA, a sheriff, and a public defender,

and refers to criminal proceedings that may be ongoing. Inasmuch as Plaintiff seeks relief from

the named state actors, the Court construes the complaint as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To

state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person

acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

Judicial Immunity

The complaint suggests that Plaintiff seeks relief under Section 1983 against Town

Justice Vercollone based on this defendant’s role in Plaintiff’s state court matter. Judges are

absolutely immune, however, from suit for damages for any actions taken within the scope of

their judicial responsibilities. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991). Generally, “acts arising

out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature.” Bliven v.

Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 210 (2d Cir. 2009). “Even allegations of bad faith or malice cannot

overcome judicial immunity.” Id. (citations omitted). This is because, “[w]ithout insulation from

liability, judges would be subject to harassment and intimidation . . . .” Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d

47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994). In addition, Section 1983, as amended in 1996, provides that “in any

action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or

declaratory relief was unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Judicial immunity does not apply when the judge takes action “outside” his judicial

capacity, or when the judge takes action that, although judicial in nature, is taken “in absence of

jurisdiction.” Mireles, 502 U.S. at 9-10; see also Bliven, 579 F.3d at 209-10 (describing actions

that are judicial in nature). But “the scope of [a] judge’s jurisdiction must be construed broadly

where the issue is the immunity of the judge.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978).

Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that Town Justice Vercollone acted beyond

the scope of his judicial responsibilities or outside his jurisdiction. See Mireles, 509 U.S. at 11-

12. Because Plaintiff sues this Defendant for “acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases

before him,” he is immune from suit for such claims. Bliven, 579 F.3d at 210. The Court

therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Justice Vercollone because they seek monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and,

consequently, as frivolous, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Mills v. Fischer, 645 F.3d 176, 177

(2d Cir. 2011) (“Any claim dismissed on the ground of absolute judicial immunity is ‘frivolous’

for purposes of [the in forma pauperis statute].”).

Prosecutorial Immunity

The Court understands the complaint as seeking relief against ADA Carpenter for her

role in Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings.1 Like judges, prosecutors also are immune from civil

suits for damages for acts committed within the scope of their official duties where the

challenged activities are not investigative in nature but, rather, are “‘intimately associated with

the judicial phase of the criminal process.’” Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 165 (2d Cir. 2012)

(quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); see also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509

U.S. 259, 269 (1993) (absolute immunity is analyzed under a “functional approach” that “looks

to the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it” (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted)). In addition, prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit

for acts that may be administrative obligations but are “directly connected with the conduct of a

trial.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 344 (2009); see also Ogunkoya v. Monaghan,

913 F.3d 64, 70-72 (2d Cir. 2019) (holding that ADAs’ direction as to where criminal defendant

would be arraigned was in preparation for a court proceeding in which the prosecutors were

acting as advocates, and ADAs were therefore shielded by absolute immunity) (citing, inter alia,

Van de Kamp).

Here, Plaintiff’s claims against ADA Carpenter are based on actions within the scope of

her official duties and associated with Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings. Therefore, these claims

are dismissed because they seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

1 Plaintiff does not identify ADA Carpenter’s gender. The Court uses she/her pronouns

for this defendant.

relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(iii), and, consequently, as frivolous, 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Collazo v. Pagano, 656 F. 3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding that claim

against prosecutor is frivolous if it arises from conduct that is “intimately associated with the

judicial phase of the criminal process”).

Private Parties

A claim for relief under Section1983 must allege facts suggesting that each defendant

acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C.

§1983.Thus, private parties generally are not liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723

F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013)(citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,

531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir.

2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”).

Absent special circumstances suggesting concerted action between an attorney and a state

representative, see Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 656 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Adickes v.

S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)), the representation of a defendant by private

counsel in state criminal proceedings does not constitute the degree of state involvement or

interference necessary to establish a claim under Section 1983, regardless of whether that

attorney is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. See Bourdon v.

Loughren, 386 F.3d 88, 90 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25

(1981)); see also Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that legal aid

organization ordinarily is not a state actor for purposes of § 1983).

Here, Plaintiff names as a defendant Karine Petino, a Putnam County public defender,

who presumably represented Plaintiff in his criminal proceedings. As this defendant is a private

party who is not alleged to work for any state or other government body, Plaintiff has not stated a

claim against Petino under Section 1983. Any such claims Plaintiff may be asserting against

Petino are dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

Personal Involvement

Plaintiff names as a defendant Putnam County Sheriff Rossiter but does not allege any

facts suggesting his personal involvement in any conduct affecting Plaintiff. To state a claim

under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendants’ direct and personal

involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Spavone v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr.

Serv., 719 F.3d 127, 135 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled in this Circuit that personal

involvement of defendants in the alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award

of damages under § 1983.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A defendant may not be held

liable under § 1983 solely because that defendant employs or supervises a person who violated

the plaintiff’s rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may

not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of

respondeat superior.”). Rather, “[t]o hold a state official liable under § 1983, a plaintiff must

plead and prove the elements of the underlying constitutional violation directly against the

official[.]” Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020).

Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing how the Putnam County Sheriff was

personally involved in any event underlying any claim Plaintiff may be asserting. Thus, the

Court dismisses any claims asserted against Sheriff Rossiter for failure to state a claim on which

relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of state-law claims

when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and

only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction.”

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). Having dismissed the federal

claims of which the Court has original jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise its

supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims Plaintiff may be asserting. See Kolari v. New

York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Subsection (c) of § 1367 ‘confirms

the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by enumerating the circumstances in which

district courts can refuse its exercise.’” (quoting City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522

U.S. 156, 173 (1997))).

D. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts

generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir.

2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has

cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to

amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid

claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)).

The Court has dismissed this complaint because Plaintiff (1) sues Defendants who are

immune from liability in a Section 1983 action, (2) cannot assert Section 1983 claims against a

private party, and (3) does not provide sufficient facts to suggest that the Putnam County Sheriff

was personally involved in any conduct. Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts

to state a valid claim against the Putnam County Sheriff, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave

to file amended complaint against Sheriff Rossiter that does not exceed 20 pages.

E. New York Legal Assistance Group

Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (“NYLAG”)

Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic

staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil

lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the

court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se

party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to

this order.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii), with 30 days leave to file an amended complaint that does not

exceed 20 pages.

An Amended Complaint form and a copy of NYLAG’s flyer with details of its clinic is

attached to this order.

The Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction of any state law claims

Plaintiff may be asserting.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2023

New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

Chief United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CVE

TT a (clu ber if has b

Write the full name of each plaintiff. evened) me eNews

against AMENDED

□ COMPLAINT

ee Do you want a jury trial?

LlYes ULINo

Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more

space, please write “see attached” in the space above and

attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of

names. The names listed above must be identical to those

contained in Section Il.

NOTICE

The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed

with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full

birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account

number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of

an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number.

See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

Rev. 2/10/17

I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of

cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving

diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United

States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332,

a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount

in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may

be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff.

What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case?

[] Federal Question

L] Diversity of Citizenship

A. If you checked Federal Question

Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?

B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship

1. Citizenship of the parties

Of what State is each party a citizen?

The plaintiff , ,is a citizen of the State of

(Plaintiff's name)

(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.)

or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or

subject of the foreign state of

If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing

information for each additional plaintiff.

Page 2

If the defendant is an individual:

The defendant, , is a citizen of the State of

(Defendant’s name)

or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or

subject of the foreign state of

.

If the defendant is a corporation:

The defendant, , is incorporated under the laws of

the State of

and has its principal place of business in the State of

or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state)

and has its principal place of business in .

If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing

information for each additional defendant.

II. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff Information

Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional

pages if needed.

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Street Address

County, City State Zip Code

Telephone Number Email Address (if available)

B. Defendant Information

To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the

correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the

defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the

caption. Attach additional pages if needed.

Defendant 1:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 2:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 3:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

Defendant 4:

First Name Last Name

Current Job Title (or other identifying information)

Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)

County, City State Zip Code

III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Place(s) of occurrence:

Date(s) of occurrence:

FACTS:

State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were

harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach

additional pages if needed.

INJURIES:

If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical

treatment, if any, you required and received.

IV. RELIEF

State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order.

V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS

By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the

complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported

by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual

contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have

evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;

and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11.

agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I

understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may

result in the dismissal of my case.

Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to

proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.

Dated Plaintiff's Signature

First Name Middle Initial Last Name

Street Address

County, City State Zip Code

Telephone Number Email Address (if available)

I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically:

OYes [LINo

If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your

complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.

Page 7

= = □ 14 SEE ° .

New York ME Legal Assistance Group District of New York

The NYLAG Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York provides free limited legal

assistance to individuals who are representing themselves or planning to represent themselves in civil lawsuits

in federal court in Manhattan and White Plains. The clinic is staffed by attorneys, law students, and paralegals.

Information given to clinic staff is confidential.

Clinic Staff Can: Clinic Staff Cannot:

Advise on filing cases in federal court e Assist with federal civil cases that belong in a

including on the issue of whether a case different federal court, such as the Eastern District of

should be filed in □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ New York, which covers of New York, which covers

New York or somewhereclsd Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Nassau and

e Provide legal advice in response to questions Suffolk Counties;

that come up at any stage of litigation; e Assist with an appeal of your federal case;

Assist in getting additional information or e Assist with state court cases, bankruptcy court cases,

research into the legal issue in your case; or criminal cases; oo.

e Review and explain court orders and filings ¢ Pay any of the costs associated with filing or

by your opponent, and provide an overview of defending a lawsuit in federal court;

the federal legal process in civil cases e File documents with the court on your behalf;

generally; e Appear on your behalf other than representation at a

° Assist with motions, discovery, and strategy; mediation through the Southern District’s Alternative

Assist with getting ready for depositions, Dispute Resolution Program, a court-ordered

pretrial conferences, mediations, and court settlement conference, or, in appropriate cases, a

appearances; deposition;

e Provide forms and instructions manuals; ° Write court documents for Yous OF

Inappropriate cases, help you retain probono° Conduct an investigation into the facts of your case.

counsel];

e Inappropriate cases, represent you in a Clinic Staff May Decline Assistance If:

mediation through the Southern District’s

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program, ora ° NYLAG has already given advice to your opponent;

court-ordered settlement conference; e Your legal problem is beyond the scope of matters

e Inappropriate cases, represent you at a handled by the clinic;

deposition; and e Providing assistance would conflict with the New York

e Inappropriate cases, provide referrals to Rules of Professional Conduct;

other agencies and organizations that provide ® Your income and/or assets are high enough to allow you

civil legal services and/or social services. to retain private counsel; or

e NYLAG determines, in its professional legal judgement,

that (i) you have refused to cooperate with the Clinic’s

counsel or follow the Clinic’s advice; (ii) any assistance

would be unreasonably difficult for NYLAG to carry out;

or (iii) your case is or will become frivolous,

unreasonable, groundless, or without merit.

¢ a ben

https://nylagoi.legalserver.org/modules/matter/extern_intake.php?pid=|42&h=cea984& UJA □ □□□□