Opinion
15-3218-pr
06-21-2017
HECTOR LAPORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTION SERGEANT FISHER, Defendant-Appellee, CORRECTION OFFICER BANKS, Defendant.
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hector LaPorte, pro se, Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrew W. Amend, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Mark H. Shawhan, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of June, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hector LaPorte, pro se, Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrew W. Amend, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Mark H. Shawhan, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk