Smickle v. Croce
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Smickle v. Croce, Judge Swain dismissed the federal claims, declined the state claims, and denied amendment because Croce was not a state actor.
Randel O. Smickle’s federal claims against Michael Croce were dismissed for failure to state a claim; the court declined to consider any state-law claims, denied amendment, and denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Smickle v. Croce, Randel O. Smickle, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sued attorney Michael Croce under a federal civil-rights law, alleging ineffective assistance during his state criminal proceedings.
The court ruled that Croce was a private attorney, not a state actor, so Smickle did not state a claim under that federal law. Because no federal claim remained, the court declined to consider any state-law claims and found that amending the complaint would be futile.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, denied leave to amend, denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Smickle v. Croce · No. 1:23-cv-03439
- Laura Swain
- June 20, 2023
Background
Randel O. Smickle, who was incarcerated at Shawangunk Correctional Facility, filed the complaint without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The complaint asserted multiple ineffective-assistance claims against Michael Croce, described as the court-appointed attorney who represented Smickle during state criminal proceedings.
A New York state-court jury had convicted Smickle in 2017 of first- and second-degree robbery and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, and he received a 15-year prison sentence. The state appellate courts affirmed the conviction or denied further review. The opinion also notes that Smickle had a separate federal petition challenging the legality of that conviction, which was pending when this order was issued.
Federal claims
The court applied the screening standards for a complaint filed by a person proceeding without prepaying filing fees and for a complaint filed by a prisoner. Those standards require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action under color of state law. The court held that Croce was a private party and was not alleged to work for a state or other government body. It explained that representing a criminal defendant does not ordinarily make a private attorney a state actor, whether the attorney is privately retained, court-appointed, or employed as a public defender. The court therefore dismissed Smickle’s federal claims for failure to state a claim.
State-law claims and amendment
The court stated that the complaint might implicate state-law claims. Because it dismissed all federal claims, however, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Smickle might seek to raise.
The court also denied leave to amend. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to correct a defective complaint, the court concluded that the defects here could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim, declined to consider the state-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction, denied leave to amend, and directed the clerk to enter judgment. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.