Stubbs v. Hill

Background

Cornelius Stubbs, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued Renee C. Hill, Esq.; the Law Office of Richman Hill & Assocs.; and Murray Richman, Esq. Stubbs alleged that Nicole Shapiro, described in the complaint as his “associate and legal advisor,” invested $35,000 of a $70,000 payment for a private investigator and legal representation in Stubbs’s criminal proceedings. Stubbs alleged that the defendants later treated him poorly, failed to act professionally, were dishonest, failed to communicate with him or provide “hold discovery” materials, and had him sign a document while knowing that he was functionally illiterate. He characterized the representation as incompetent and sought the return of the $35,000 retainer.

The court had previously allowed Stubbs to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of such complaints that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring dismissal whenever a federal court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Federal Claims

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue for violations of federal rights by someone acting under state authority. The court explained that private parties generally are not liable under § 1983. It further stated that representation by private counsel in state criminal proceedings does not, without special circumstances suggesting coordinated action with a state representative, make the attorney a state actor. Because the defendants were private attorneys and Stubbs did not allege that they worked for a government body, the court held that he could not state a § 1983 claim against them. The court also found no other federal claim in the facts alleged.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court said the complaint could arguably be read to assert legal malpractice or other state-law claims. Federal courts may hear such claims based on diversity jurisdiction only when the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. The court found that Stubbs’s complaint stated that he and the defendants resided in New York and that the amount in controversy did not meet the required threshold. It therefore concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court declined to give Stubbs permission to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). 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. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.