Filed: Mar. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 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
Summary: 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 ..
More
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
