Bailey v. City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-01488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bailey v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil denied representation, ordered a competency hearing, and reserved the dismissal motion.
Damond Bailey, Tiasha Jenkins, and the defendants. The order denied Jenkins’s requests, required the listed participants to attend a competency-related hearing, and left the defendants’ dismissal motion undecided.
What happened
In Damond Bailey v. City of New York, Bailey’s attorney withdrew, and Bailey stopped responding and failed to follow several court orders. The defendants moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Tiasha Jenkins, who said she was Bailey’s mother, asked to represent him or have a lawyer appointed for him. The court said a person who is not a licensed lawyer cannot represent someone else in federal court, and it sealed Bailey’s medical diagnosis because it contained sensitive information.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Jenkins’s requests, ordered Bailey, Jenkins, and the defendants to attend a March 5, 2021 video hearing, and reserved decision on the defendants’ dismissal motion while the court considers Bailey’s ability to represent himself.
The detailed version
- Bailey v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-01488
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 28, 2021
Background
After Bailey’s attorney withdrew in August 2020, Bailey proceeded without a lawyer. The court stated that he had been completely unresponsive and had failed to comply with multiple court orders warning that the case could be dismissed. In December 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
On January 5, 2021, Tiasha Jenkins, who was not a party to the case but said she was Bailey’s mother, asked to represent Bailey or have counsel appointed for him. Her letter included Bailey’s diagnosis of a mental illness. The court sealed that document because it contained sensitive medical information.
Requests to Represent Bailey and Competency Concerns
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 allows a person to conduct their own case or appear through a licensed attorney, but does not allow a nonlawyer to represent another person. The court found that Jenkins did not allege that she was a licensed attorney and that she had no personal interest in the case. Because Jenkins could not represent Bailey, the court also concluded that she could not request appointed counsel on his behalf.
The court nevertheless decided to examine Bailey’s competency—the legal question of whether he can manage the case himself—and whether a guardian ad litem, a person appointed to protect an unrepresented person’s interests, should be appointed. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(2), the court stated that it must appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order to protect an incompetent person who is unrepresented. The court concluded that Bailey’s medical diagnosis raised a significant question about his mental competency and warranted consideration of a guardian ad litem.
Order
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that Jenkins’s request to represent Bailey or have counsel appointed for him was denied. The court ordered Bailey, Jenkins, and the defendants to appear by video for a hearing on March 5, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The court reserved decision on the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute until it determines whether Bailey is competent to prosecute the case without a lawyer. The order warned that Bailey’s failure to attend the hearing may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.