Williams v. Brill

Background

Shamark K. Williams, representing himself, sued attorneys Peter E. Brill and David Gray, who had represented him in an earlier lawsuit involving claims arising from his January 12, 2018 arrest. Brill and Gray later withdrew from that case, leaving Williams to continue without a lawyer. Questions arose in the earlier case about whether defendant Michael Vaccaro had been properly served. The court in that case dismissed Williams’s claims against Vaccaro for failure to serve him and stated that Williams might have a timely malpractice claim against his former attorneys in New York State Supreme Court because malpractice was a state-law claim and federal diversity jurisdiction was lacking.

In this action, Williams asserted claims labeled malpractice, legal malpractice, negligence, professional negligence, and discrimination. He sought $10 million in damages. He also sought to prosecute federal criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 242. The court had previously allowed Williams to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Jurisdictional analysis

Federal district courts generally have federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law and diversity jurisdiction when opposing parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

The court held that Williams could not invoke federal-question jurisdiction by relying on 18 U.S.C. § 242, a federal criminal statute. A private plaintiff cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution, and prosecutors have discretion over whether to bring criminal charges. The court therefore concluded that no civil claim could be brought under that statute.

The court also held that Williams had not established diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleged that all parties were citizens of New York, so the complete diversity required for federal jurisdiction was absent. The amount Williams sought did not cure that problem.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It did not decide the merits of Williams’s malpractice, negligence, professional-negligence, or discrimination claims. The court stated that Williams could pursue those state-law claims in state court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.