Nieves v. Turchi

Background

Michael Nieves, who was incarcerated at Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward, filed the action without a lawyer against his former criminal defense attorney, David P. Turchi, Esq. Nieves was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims against people who, while acting under state authority, violate federal rights.

Nieves alleged that between March and August 2021 he sent Turchi financial information and advice, including information about automated day-trading software. After Nieves’s criminal proceedings were reassigned to Justice Laura Ward, she ordered that he be examined under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 730 and indicated that Turchi could file necessary pretrial motions. Nieves alleged that he and Turchi discussed possible applications concerning his case, but that Turchi requested an adjournment and ultimately filed none. Nieves then objected to Turchi’s representation and received new defense counsel. Nieves also alleged that Turchi mailed a compact disc containing medical and psychiatric records to correctional officers for forwarding to him.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires a violation by a person acting under color of state law, meaning with the authority or involvement of the government. Private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. The court held that Turchi’s representation of Nieves in state criminal proceedings did not make Turchi a state actor. The complaint also did not allege special circumstances showing coordinated action between Turchi and a state representative. Nieves therefore failed to state a § 1983 claim.

The court said the complaint could also be read to assert claims under state law, including claims concerning attorney-client confidentiality and professional conduct. After dismissing the federal claims, however, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and declined to give Nieves permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.