Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 17, 2021

Edwards v. Gutwien

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:21-cv-03183
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro SeDiscovery
In one sentence

In Edwards v. Gutwein, Judge Halpern denied Edwards’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice and ordered service and discovery procedures.

Who this affects

Mark Edwards, defendants Eric Gutwein and Morel, the Clerk of Court, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What happened

In Edwards v. Gutwein, Mark Edwards, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Green Haven Correctional Facility Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein and Correctional Officer Morel under a federal civil-rights law. He seeks money damages, court declarations, and an injunction.

The court ordered the Clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue summonses and serve the defendants. It extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and required the defendants to answer specified discovery requests within 120 days after service. Edwards must notify the court if his address changes.

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Edwards’s request for the court to seek a volunteer lawyer without prejudice, because it was too early to evaluate the case’s merits. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Edwards v. Gutwien · No. 7:21-cv-03183
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
May 17, 2021

Background

Mark Edwards, who is incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state authority. He sued Green Haven Correctional Facility Hearing Officer Eric Gutwein and Green Haven Correctional Officer Morel. Edwards seeks damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

The court had previously allowed Edwards to proceed without paying the filing fee at the beginning of the case. Edwards also asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer for him.

Volunteer Counsel

The court considered the factors used to decide whether to request volunteer counsel for a person who cannot afford a lawyer, including the apparent strength of the claims, efforts to obtain a lawyer, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case without counsel. The court stated that the merits of the case receive the most attention, but that the case was at too early a stage for the court to evaluate its merits.

The court denied Edwards’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel without prejudice to his filing another application later.

Service and Discovery

Because Edwards was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The Clerk of Court was ordered to issue summonses, complete the required service forms with the defendants’ service addresses, and give the necessary documents to the Marshals Service.

The court extended the time for service to 90 days after summonses are issued. It stated that, if service is not completed within that period, Edwards should request an extension. Edwards must also notify the court in writing if his address changes; the court stated that it may dismiss the case if he does not do so.

The court determined that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to answer specified discovery requests. The defendants must serve responses to those requests within 120 days after the complaint is served and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Conclusion

The court denied Edwards’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel without prejudice. It directed the Clerk and Marshals Service to arrange service and directed the defendants to comply with Local Civil Rule 33.2 within 120 days after service. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.