Nieves v. Turchi

Background

Michael Nieves filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits against people acting under state authority who violate federal rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. The opinion states that Nieves was detained at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island.

Nieves alleged that, between March and August 2021, he sent his former criminal defense attorney, David P. Turchi, financial information and advice, including an investment guide. After Nieves’s criminal proceedings were reassigned to Justice Laura Ward, the judge ordered that Nieves undergo an examination under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 730. Nieves alleged that he and Turchi discussed possible applications concerning his criminal case, including an expedited writ, dismissal or reduction of charges, reduced bail, or release on recognizance. Turchi requested an adjournment but ultimately filed no applications, and Nieves received new counsel on December 21, 2021.

Nieves also alleged that Turchi maliciously mailed a compact disc containing medical and psychiatric records to correctional officers for re-mailing to Nieves. He asserted violations involving attorney-client confidentiality and professional conduct. He sought damages and asked that a competent attorney be appointed to litigate claims concerning alleged wrongdoing by Turchi.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a § 1983 claim requires conduct by a person acting under color of state law, meaning with authority attributable to the government. Private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. The court held that Turchi was a private party and that representing 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 state-law claims. Because it dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Nieves might be asserting.

The court declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition and Warning

The court dismissed Nieves’s § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The court also noted that Nieves had filed a prior identical action against Turchi and other cases involving former attorneys that had been dismissed on similar grounds. It warned that further duplicative, repetitive, or meritless litigation could result in an order barring Nieves from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.