Nieves v. Andrew F. Plasse & Associates, LLC

Background

Micheal Nieves, who was incarcerated at Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward and proceeded without a lawyer, sued Andrew F. Plasse & Associates, LLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant is described as a private corporation with its principal place of business in Flushing, Queens County, New York. The firm had represented Nieves in a damages suit filed in New York state court.

The firm later asked the state court for permission to withdraw as Nieves’s counsel. Judge Mitchell J. Danziger granted that request on May 3, 2019. Nieves alleged that the firm made false statements in its application, including that he had discharged the firm before his arrest on April 5, 2019. He also alleged that the firm mailed his case file after withdrawing but that he did not receive it until mid-June 2019, which he said impaired his ability to retain new counsel within the 60-day period ordered by the state court. He alleged that the firm conspired with several government entities and violated state law and the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought damages.

Legal standard

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirements. Those requirements direct a federal court to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while courts must read complaints filed without lawyers liberally.

Court’s reasoning

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law—that is, through authority or conduct attributable to a state or local government. Private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. The court noted that private representation by an attorney does not ordinarily create the required government involvement.

The court accepted that the complaint identified the defendant as a private corporation. It held that Nieves’s unsupported statement that the firm was “conspiring” with government entities was not enough to establish state action. Because the firm was a private party not acting under color of state law, the complaint did not state a § 1983 claim. The court also held that the defect could not be cured through better pleading and therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed Nieves’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims are dismissed—over Nieves’s state-law claims. Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Nieves a copy of the order and note service on the docket.