Gonzalez v. Hunt
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-01548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Gonzalez v. Hunt, Judge Halpern ordered service and denied Gonzalez’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Dalila Gonzalez, Correctional Officer Hunt, Correctional Officer Perez, and Correctional Sergeant Murray; the Clerk of Court and U.S. Marshals Service were directed to carry out service-related tasks.
What happened
Dalila Gonzalez, who is incarcerated and representing himself, brought constitutional claims under a federal civil-rights law against Correctional Officers Hunt and Perez and Correctional Sergeant Murray. The court had already allowed Gonzalez to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve summonses and the complaint. It also ordered the defendants to answer specified prisoner-discovery requests within 120 days after service and required Gonzalez to notify the court of any address change.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Gonzalez’s request for the court to seek a volunteer lawyer without prejudice because it was too early to evaluate the case’s merits, while allowing a proper request later. The order did not decide whether Gonzalez’s claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. Hunt · No. 7:25-cv-01548
- Philip Halpern
- May 15, 2025
Background
Dalila Gonzalez, who is incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer and asserted federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Officer Hunt, Correctional Officer Perez, and Correctional Sergeant Murray. The court had previously granted Gonzalez permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Service of the complaint
Because Gonzalez was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form for each defendant. The Clerk was also directed to provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve each defendant.
The court stated that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If service is not completed in that period, Gonzalez should request more time. Gonzalez must also notify the court in writing of any address change; the court stated that it may dismiss the action if Gonzalez fails to do so.
Discovery requirement
The court directed the defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2. Within 120 days after service of the summonses and complaint, the defendants must respond to the specified interrogatories and document requests and must quote each request word for word in their responses.
Request for appointed counsel
Gonzalez requested that the court seek a volunteer lawyer under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(g). Although Gonzalez used a form for habeas and other criminal matters, the court treated the request as one for volunteer counsel in this § 1983 action. The court denied the application without prejudice to Gonzalez filing a proper application later.
The court explained that the merits of the case receive the most attention when deciding whether to request volunteer counsel. Because the case was at an early stage, the court concluded that it could not yet evaluate the merits. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending counsel application.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to begin service, directed the defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2, and denied Gonzalez’s counsel application without prejudice. The order did not resolve the merits of the constitutional claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.