James v. State of New York

10-2042-cv James v. State of New York UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 22nd day of March, two thousand eleven. 5 6 PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 12 13 DONNA M. JAMES, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 -v.- 10-2042-cv 18 19 THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 20 SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 21 22 Defendants-Appellees. 23 24 25 FOR APPELLANT: DONNA M. JAMES, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. 26 27 FOR APPELLEES:* OREN L. ZEVE, Managing-Administrative 28 Assistant Solicitor General, for Andrew 29 Cuomo, Attorney General for the State of 30 New York, New York, NY. 31 * Appellees have submitted one-page letters denying that they were served with the complaint in the proceedings below and announcing their intention not to appear or file any further papers on appeal. 1 PAMELA SEIDER DOGLOW, Senior Counsel, for 2 Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel 3 for the City of New York, New York, NY. 4 5 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 6 Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.). 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 9 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 10 VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings 11 consistent with this order. 12 Appellant Donna M. James, proceeding pro se, appeals 13 from the district court’s judgment sua sponte dismissing her 14 complaint with prejudice on the grounds that (1) she has 15 been adjudicated incapacitated in state court; (2) she has 16 guardians appointed to her; (3) none of her state-appointed 17 guardians responded to the court’s order directing them to 18 respond if they wished to pursue the action. We assume the 19 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 20 procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 21 This Court generally reviews sua sponte dismissals de 22 novo. See, e.g., Giano v. Goord, 250 F.3d 146, 149-50 (2d 23 Cir. 2001). Additionally, this Court reviews a decision as 24 to whether to appoint a guardian ad litem for abuse of 25 discretion. See Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 26 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003). A court may not determine 2 1 on its merits the claim of an incompetent person who is not 2 properly represented. Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 3 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2009). 4 “A minor or incompetent person normally lacks the 5 capacity to bring suit for himself.” Id. (citing N.Y. 6 C.P.L.R. 1201 (McKinney 1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) 7 (capacity of individual claimant determined “by the law of 8 the individual’s domicile”)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), “[t]he court must appoint a 10 guardian ad litem – or issue another appropriate order – to 11 protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 12 in an action.” 13 Here, the district court was correct to sua sponte 14 raise the issue of competency and representation by a 15 general guardian under Rule 17(c), but its subsequent 16 actions were erroneous for the reasons set forth below. 17 First, the district court erred by dismissing the 18 action with prejudice. In its April 2010 order, the court 19 noted that if James’s guardians did not respond to the 20 order, it would dismiss the action without prejudice. 21 Instead of doing so, the district court dismissed the action 22 with prejudice. Moreover, the district court must not reach 23 the merits of a claim filed on behalf of an incompetent 3 1 person who is not properly represented by a suitable 2 guardian and through counsel. See Berrios, 564 F.3d at 134- 3 35; see also Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th 4 Cir. 1989). Although the dismissal here did not 5 specifically address the merits, it will nonetheless have 6 the same collateral effects as a dismissal on the merits 7 because the district court dismissed the complaint with 8 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“Unless the dismissal 9 order states otherwise, a dismissal order under this 10 [involuntary dismissal] subdivision [ ] and any dismissal 11 not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, 12 improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — 13 operates as an adjudication on the merits.”); Yonkers 14 Contracting Co. v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 93 N.Y.2d 15 375, 380 (1999) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ generally 16 signifies that the court intended to dismiss the action ‘on 17 the merits’ . . . . We have used the words ‘with prejudice’ 18 interchangeably with the phrase ‘on the merits’ to indicate 19 the same preclusive effect.”) (citations omitted). 20 Second, although the district court had reason to 21 believe that James had been determined incapable of managing 22 her own affairs, it did not establish that fact 23 conclusively. The court noted that documents attached to 4 1 James’s complaint indicated that she had been adjudicated 2 incapacitated in 2003 in state court and that the state 3 court had appointed guardians of her person and property. 4 In light of the factual background before it, the district 5 court should have first determined whether James was in fact 6 incompetent, whether she still had guardians, whether, if 7 so, they were aware of her attempt to file suit, and whether 8 they wished to undertake the suit on her behalf. 9 On remand, if James is indeed incompetent to manage the 10 litigation the district court should appoint James a 11 guardian ad litem if none of the state-appointed guardians 12 appear in the matter.1 The appointment by the district 13 court of a guardian ad litem may be appropriate in this case 14 even if state-appointed guardians do appear, since James’s 15 filings allege that at least one of her guardians has a 16 financial interest in the guardianship adverse to her own 17 interests. Federal courts have inherent, discretionary 18 power to appoint a guardian ad litem when it appears that an 19 incompetent person’s general representative has interests 20 which may conflict with those of the person he is supposed 21 to represent. See Ad Hoc Comm. of Concerned Teachers v. 1 James’ guardians appear to be attorneys admitted to practice law in New York according to the state court records submitted by James. It may well be that the district court will choose to appoint a guardian for James to assist the court in locating the state-appointed guardians. 5 1 Greenburgh # 11 Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 25, 30 (2d 2 Cir. 1989); Adelman ex rel. Adelman v. Graves, 747 F.2d 986, 3 988 (5th Cir. 1984). However, we leave the question of 4 whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed for the 5 district court to address in the first instance. 6 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 7 VACATED and we REMAND the case to the district court for 8 further proceedings in accordance with this order. 9 10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 12 13 6