15‐3218‐pr Laporte v. Corr. Sgt. Fisher

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

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 COURTʹS 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 ʺSUMMARY ORDERʺ). 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. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x

HECTOR LAPORTE, Plaintiff‐Appellant, 15‐3218‐pr v.

CORRECTION SERGEANT FISHER, Defendant‐Appellee,

CORRECTION OFFICER BANKS, Defendant.

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐x

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 courtʹs

September 22, 2015 judgment dismissing his complaint, entered after a jury verdict in

favor of defendant‐appellee Corrections Sergeant Fisher on LaPorteʹs excessive force

claims under

. We assume the partiesʹ familiarity with the underlying

facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

LaPorteʹs 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 LaPorteʹs ineffective assistance of counsel claim is

not cognizable. See Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum,

(2d Cir.

2013); United States v. Coven,

(2d Cir. 1981).

2 We have considered LaPorteʹs remaining arguments and conclude they

are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine OʹHagan Wolfe, Clerk

3