Grant v. Seidler
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05323
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Grant v. Seidler, Judge McMahon dismissed Grant’s civil-rights complaint because Seidler was private counsel, not a state actor.
Walter Grant’s federal civil-rights claims were dismissed, and the court declined to hear any state-law claims he may have asserted. Alan B. Seidler was not held liable.
What happened
Grant v. Seidler involved Walter Grant’s lawsuit, filed without a lawyer, against Alan B. Seidler, whom Grant identified as his appellate lawyer in a 1977 murder case. Grant alleged that Seidler violated his constitutional rights and sought $42 million, but the complaint did not clearly explain how Seidler violated those rights.
The court ruled that Seidler was a private person who did not work for a government body. His representation of Grant in the state criminal case therefore did not support a civil-rights claim under federal law. The court also declined to decide any state-law claims Grant may have been asserting.
Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint during the required review of a prisoner’s filing, declined to allow an amended complaint, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Grant v. Seidler · No. 1:19-cv-05323
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 6, 2019
Background
Walter Grant, who was incarcerated at Mohawk Correctional Facility, filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Alan B. Seidler violated rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The opinion states that Seidler had been appointed as Grant’s appellate lawyer after Grant’s 1977 murder conviction. Grant sought $42 million.
The court found the complaint difficult to understand. It included references to Grant’s conviction, possible actual innocence, newly discovered evidence, and prior state-court filings, along with more than 80 pages of exhibits. The court stated that the complaint did not explain how Seidler violated Grant’s federal constitutional rights.
Legal Standard
Because Grant was a prisoner proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under the cited statutes, the court had to dismiss a claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought damages from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that it had to read a filing by a person without a lawyer generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.
Section 1983 Claim
The court held that Grant failed to state a claim under § 1983. That statute generally requires facts showing that the defendant acted under color of state law, meaning through authority or conduct attributable to the government. The court stated that Seidler was a private person who did not work for a state or other government body. It further explained that representing a defendant in state criminal proceedings does not, by itself, make a private lawyer a state actor, regardless of whether the lawyer is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender.
State-Law Claims
The court had dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Grant may have been asserting.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court declined to give Grant permission to amend the complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be corrected through amendment. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Grant permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.