Davis v. Taylor

Background

William Scott Davis, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated at the time of the order, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Ava Taylor PhD, Rhonda Ferguson-Agustus, New York State Mental Hygiene Attorney Jane Doe’s, White Plains Hospital Social Worker Jane Doe, and Attorney Richard Doe. He alleged that the claims arose at White Plains Hospital.

The case had previously been dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which the opinion describes as barring Davis based on three qualifying dismissals of earlier prisoner actions. That dismissal was later vacated after two reconsideration motions were granted. The Court of Appeals later determined that it lacked jurisdiction over one appeal and dismissed another appeal. The case was eventually reassigned to Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Competency and Prior Strikes

In Davis’s related federal criminal proceedings, a court found on February 3, 2016, that he was then unable to understand the proceedings or properly assist in his defense. That court later found him competent to stand trial on June 5, 2017. The present court found that the available record did not suggest incompetence outside that period.

For purposes of this order, the court assumed that Davis was incompetent from January 30, 2015, through June 5, 2017. Because one prior case was dismissed during that period, the court concluded that the dismissal should not count as a strike under Section 1915(g). The court nevertheless independently reviewed the prior dismissals and found that four other dismissals qualified as strikes: two from 2011 and two later dismissals identified in the opinion as having occurred in 2018 and 2011. The court concluded that Davis was barred under Section 1915(g) based on those four strikes.

Order to Show Cause

Although the court found that the four identified dismissals qualified as strikes, it noted that Davis had not yet been given an opportunity to challenge two of them. The court therefore directed him to show cause, within 30 days, why the court should not issue an order recognizing that he is barred under Section 1915(g). The order included a declaration form for his response.

Guardian Ad Litem Request

Davis also requested appointment of a guardian ad litem, meaning a person appointed to protect an unrepresented minor or legally incompetent party in a case. The court explained that a prior incompetency finding can require an inquiry into a self-represented litigant’s competency, but that the record here did not show a later official finding of incompetence, current placement in a psychiatric facility, or inappropriate behavior in this case. The court found that a competency inquiry was unnecessary at that point and denied the request for a guardian ad litem.

Disposition

The court directed Davis to show cause within 30 days why the Section 1915(g) bar should not be recognized, and denied his request for a guardian ad litem. This order did not itself dismiss the action.