Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2024

Caswell v. Martuscello

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-05723
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Caswell v. Martuscello, Judge Karas ordered service of the pro se prisoner’s civil-rights complaint.

Who this affects

Reggie Caswell and defendants Daniel Martuscello III and Stacie Bennett; the order also directs actions by the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Caswell v. Martuscello, Reggie Caswell, who is incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, brought a civil-rights case without a lawyer against Daniel Martuscello III and Stacie Bennett. He alleged that they violated his federally protected rights.

Because the court allowed Caswell to proceed without paying court fees in advance, it directed the Clerk’s Office and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the defendants. The court also extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses are issued and required Caswell to notify the court of any address change.

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies, requiring the defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide the merits of Caswell’s claims in this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Caswell v. Martuscello · No. 7:24-cv-05723
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Aug. 5, 2024

Background

Reggie Caswell, who is incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that Daniel Martuscello III, identified in the caption as the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Stacie Bennett, identified as the Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, violated his federally protected rights. The court had previously granted Caswell permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

Service of the Complaint

Because Caswell was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance, the court ordered that he may rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was instructed to issue a summons for each defendant, complete a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form for each defendant, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to complete service.

The court explained that the usual 90-day service period could not begin until summonses were issued. It therefore extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed within that period, Caswell should request an extension. The court also directed Caswell to notify it in writing if his address changes and stated that the case may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Discovery Requirement

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to this action. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified court-ordered discovery requests. Martuscello and Bennett must serve responses to the standard interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint, and their responses must quote each request word for word.

Disposition

The order directs the Clerk of Court to issue the summonses, prepare the service forms, and send the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. It also directs the Clerk to mail Caswell an information package and a copy of the order, and states that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide whether Caswell’s underlying civil-rights allegations are valid.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.