Pittman v. Breir

Background

Deborah Pittman filed the complaint on behalf of James Pettus. She asserted federal-question jurisdiction. The claims arose from Pettus’s state-court eviction proceedings and related matters. The defendants included judges of the Bronx Housing Court and Appellate Term, as well as members of the board of directors for the property at 800 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York. The court said that Pittman’s relationship with Pettus was unclear.

Pittman appeared without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court also noted that Pettus was subject to a filing restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because of his history of vexatious litigation. That restriction required him to obtain permission before filing a new action without paying fees. The court referred to earlier related proceedings involving the same dispute and defendants, but those proceedings did not change the ruling in this order.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the claims. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal law allows a person to appear either through a licensed attorney or by representing himself or herself. A person appearing without a lawyer generally may not litigate claims belonging to someone else. Because only Pittman signed the complaint and she alleged no facts showing that she was an attorney, the court held that she could not assert Pettus’s claims on his behalf.

The court further stated that Pettus could not circumvent his filing restriction by having another person file a complaint without a lawyer for him. The court repeated that its prior warning about possible additional sanctions, including monetary penalties, remained in effect.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the provision addressing failure to state a claim. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.