Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 6, 2019

Lewis v. Ditomasso

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-10665
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Ditomasso, Judge McMahon dismissed Regina Lewis’s complaint without prejudice because she lacked a guardian ad litem.

Who this affects

Regina Lewis’s case was dismissed without prejudice because she filed it without a guardian ad litem represented by counsel; the defendants were not required to litigate the disability-discrimination claims in this action.

What happened

In Lewis v. Ditomasso, Regina Lewis brought disability-discrimination claims against Valentina Ditomasso, Independent Living Inc., Safe Harbors of the Hudson Independent Living Inc., and the Orange County Department of Social Service. The court allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court explained that Lewis had previously been found legally unable to proceed without a guardian ad litem, meaning a representative appointed to act for someone who cannot litigate alone. Because she filed this case without such a representative, the court did not decide whether her discrimination claims were valid.

Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again through a guardian ad litem who is or will be represented by a lawyer. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lewis v. Ditomasso · No. 1:19-cv-10665
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 6, 2019

Background

Regina Lewis filed a complaint asserting disability-discrimination claims against Valentina Ditomasso, Independent Living Inc., Safe Harbors of the Hudson Independent Living Inc., and the Orange County Department of Social Service. She filed the complaint without paying the filing fee. The court granted her permission to proceed without paying that fee but dismissed the action without prejudice.

Screening Standard

Because Lewis was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint, or part of one, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts must read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Guardian Requirement

The court relied on Second Circuit precedent stating that a federal civil action brought by a person who is legally unable to litigate cannot be decided on the merits unless that person is represented by a guardian ad litem and the guardian is represented by counsel. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to represent someone who cannot conduct the litigation independently.

In a prior related proceeding, No. 1:11-CV-3194, a magistrate judge conducted a competency hearing under Rule 17 and determined that Lewis was not legally competent to proceed without appointment of a guardian ad litem. The opinion also states that prior counsel later withdrew after efforts to secure a replacement guardian ad litem were unsuccessful.

Ruling

The court dismissed this action without prejudice because Lewis filed it without a guardian ad litem. The court stated that Lewis could proceed in federal court only through a guardian ad litem who is or will be represented by counsel. The dismissal did not decide the merits of her disability-discrimination claims.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to Judge McMahon’s docket, mail the order to Lewis, and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.