Smalls v. Fuchs
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00776
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Smalls v. Fuchs, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction but allowed 30 days to replead.
Aaron Desmond Smalls’s claims against Alyssa Fuch and Cohen and Fitch were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with 30 days to replead; the court also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Smalls v. Fuchs, Aaron Desmond Smalls sued attorney Alyssa Fuch and Cohen and Fitch over their representation of him in a police-excessive-force case. He sought documents, reopening of that case, and $2 million, relying on a federal civil-rights law.
The court said the defendants were private parties, not government actors, so the federal civil-rights law did not support federal-question jurisdiction. Smalls also had not provided enough information to show that the parties were citizens of different states, which could have supported federal jurisdiction over his state malpractice claims.
Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and gave Smalls 30 days to amend it. The court also denied his ability to proceed without paying fees on an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Smalls v. Fuchs · No. 1:25-cv-00776
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background
Aaron Desmond Smalls, representing himself, sued Alyssa Fuch and the law firm Cohen and Fitch. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people acting under state authority for violating federal rights. Smalls alleged that police officers assaulted him in December 2021 and that Fuch was later assigned to represent him in his related civil case. He alleged problems with the representation, including that Fuch kept the lawsuit running, lied about the amount she received, insulted him, and destroyed case materials.
Smalls sought access to video and documents obtained by the law firm, reopening of his police-excessive-force case, and $2 million. He also referred to an alleged conspiracy involving people connected to the New York City Comptroller’s Office, but those people were not named as defendants and the court found no factual basis for that allegation.
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
The court examined whether it had subject matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. It considered two possible bases for federal jurisdiction: a claim arising under federal law and diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires all plaintiffs and defendants to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000.
The court concluded that Smalls had not established federal-question jurisdiction. Section 1983 requires a defendant to have acted under state authority. The court found that Fuch was a private attorney and Cohen and Fitch was a private law firm, and Smalls did not allege that either defendant acted for a state or other government body. The court therefore concluded that the defendants were not subject to suit under Section 1983. It also found no other clearly stated federal-law claim.
The court separately concluded that Smalls had not established diversity jurisdiction. He did not provide facts about his own domicile before incarceration, Fuch’s domicile, or the citizenship of the members of Cohen and Fitch. Providing New York addresses for the parties was not enough to establish the citizenship information required for diversity jurisdiction. As a result, the court found no basis to hear Smalls’s state-law malpractice claims in federal court.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Smalls 30 days’ leave to replead by filing an amended complaint with additional facts about federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted that he might be able to pursue his malpractice claims in a state court with general jurisdiction. If he did not amend within the permitted time, the clerk would be directed to enter judgment.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smalls permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.