Smalls v. Cooper

Background

Aaron D. Smalls filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. He was incarcerated at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island and had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Smalls sued Matthew Caretto, identified as his criminal defense counsel; Charlotte Armour, an assistant district attorney; and forensic psychiatrists Amy Cooper, M.D., and Daniel S. Mundy, M.D. He alleged that Cooper evaluated him by video conference before he received hearing aids and that the psychiatrists’ reports contained errors, including statements about his education, hearing voices, and other matters. The reports stated that the psychiatrists considered him unfit to proceed to trial. Smalls sought damages and an order suspending the defendants.

Screening and Claims

Because Smalls was incarcerated and proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or were outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Defense Counsel

The court dismissed the claim against Caretto because a defense lawyer’s representation of a criminal defendant generally does not constitute action under state authority for purposes of § 1983. The opinion states that this rule applies whether the lawyer is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. The court concluded that Caretto, who was identified as working for the Legal Aid Society, was not a state actor.

Assistant District Attorney

The court concluded that Smalls did not plead facts explaining what Armour did or failed to do that violated his rights. The court further stated that claims seeking damages for actions within a prosecutor’s official duties and closely associated with criminal proceedings are barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Forensic Psychiatrists

The court dismissed the claims against Cooper and Mundy under quasi-judicial immunity. This form of immunity protects certain participants in court proceedings. The court held that the psychiatrists were immune from claims arising from their court-ordered examinations under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 730.30 and the reports they submitted to the criminal court.

The court noted that, under New York’s procedure, the criminal court—not the examiners—makes the ultimate decision about a defendant’s fitness to proceed. It stated that Smalls could raise concerns about his hearing aids or other challenges to the evaluations in a hearing in the criminal case.

Guardian ad Litem and Leave to Amend

Because the psychiatric reports concluded that Smalls was unfit to stand trial, the court considered whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 required appointment of a guardian ad litem, meaning a representative to protect an allegedly legally incompetent person in the lawsuit. The court found that appointment was unwarranted because Smalls could not pursue any substantial claims based on the events described. It also declined to grant leave to amend, concluding that the legal defects could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). The court did not appoint a guardian ad litem. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smalls permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on June 21, 2022.