Chavez v. Gutwein

Background

Ivan Chavez brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. The opinion says that Chavez alleged constitutional-rights violations while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility. He was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, although the opinion notes that prisoners remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Service of process

Because Chavez had permission to proceed without paying fees upfront, the court ruled that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued. It instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Commissioner Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein, Correction Officer A. Nucatola, Director of the Special Housing Unit D. Venettozzi, and Nurse Lurch. The court stated that Chavez should ask for an extension if service was not completed within that period and warned that he must notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Discovery

The court ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer standard, court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants must serve their responses within 120 days after the complaint is served and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Request for appointed counsel

Chavez asked the court to request pro bono, or free, counsel. The court explained that civil litigants do not have an automatic constitutional right to a lawyer, although a federal court may appoint one for an indigent party in appropriate circumstances. The court generally first considers whether the claim appears likely to have substance and whether the plaintiff has shown that he cannot obtain counsel. Here, the court found that Chavez had not shown that he was unable to obtain counsel or described any efforts to find one.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Chavez’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later date. The court directed service and required compliance with Local Civil Rule 33.2. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.