Perkins v. Rodriguez
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-05166
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Perkins v. Rodriguez: Judge Seibel ordered service in Perkins’s civil-rights case and denied his request for counsel without prejudice.
Timothy Lee Perkins, Jr., Correction Officer Rodriguez, Michael Daye, and Daniel F. Martuscello, III. The order requires the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to take steps to serve the defendants and requires the defendants to respond to the specified discovery requests.
What happened
In Perkins v. Rodriguez, Timothy Lee Perkins, Jr., who is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and is representing himself, sued Correction Officer Rodriguez, Superintendent Michael Daye, and Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello, III. He alleges that they violated his constitutional rights under a federal civil-rights law.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and give the necessary papers to the U.S. Marshals Service so the defendants can be served. The court also said that a prisoner discovery rule applies and requires the defendants to respond to specified discovery requests within 120 days after service.
Judge Cathy Seibel denied Perkins’s request for a free lawyer without prejudice, meaning he may renew the request later. The order did not decide whether Perkins’s constitutional claims are valid.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. Rodriguez · No. 7:25-cv-05166
- Cathy Seibel
- July 29, 2025
Background
Timothy Lee Perkins, Jr. filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. The opinion says Perkins is incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer. He named Correction Officer Rodriguez, Fishkill Superintendent Michael Daye, and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello, III, as defendants.
The court had previously granted Perkins permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The order addresses service of the lawsuit, Perkins’s request for appointed counsel, and discovery procedures. It does not decide the merits of his constitutional claims.
Service of the Lawsuit
Because Perkins was allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance, the court directed the Clerk of Court to prepare U.S. Marshals Service process forms, issue summonses for each defendant, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. The Marshals Service is to serve the defendants.
The court explained that service must occur within 90 days after the summonses are issued. If the lawsuit is not served within that period, Perkins should ask for more time. He must also notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court said it may dismiss the action if he fails to do so.
Request for Appointed Counsel
Perkins asked the court to appoint a pro bono lawyer, meaning a lawyer without charge. The court considered that the merits of his case could not yet be assessed because the lawsuit was at an early stage. Judge Cathy Seibel therefore denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date.
Discovery Procedure
The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified interrogatories and requests for documents. The defendants must serve responses within 120 days after the complaint is served, and their responses must quote each discovery request word for word.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to issue the summonses, complete the Marshals Service forms, and send the service materials to the Marshals Service. The court denied Perkins’s application for appointed pro bono counsel without prejudice and directed the Clerk to terminate that motion. The court also directed that an information package be mailed to Perkins.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.