1 16-613-cv Lewis v. Newburgh Housing Authority

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRON IC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 1 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 2 30 th day of June, two thousand seventeen. 3

4 Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, 5 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 6 Circuit Judges

. 7 LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, 1 8 District Judge

. 9

10

_____________________________________________________ 11

12 REGINA LEWIS, 13

14 Plaintiff-Appellant

, 15

16 v. 16-613-cv 17

18 NEWBURGH HOUSING AUTHORITY, MARC STARLING, 19 In his official capacity as Executive Director of the 20 Newburgh Housing Authority, 21

22 Defendants-Appellees

. 23

_____________________________________________________ 24

25 Appearing for Appellant: Regina Lewis, pro se, Goshen, NY. 26

27

1 Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation.2 Appearing for Appellees: Jeffrey S. Sculley, Rider, Weiner & Frankel, P.C., New Windsor, 1 NY. 2

3 Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of New York (Smith, 4 M.J. ). 5

6 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 7 AND DECREED that the order of said Dist rict Court be and it hereby is VACATED and 8 REMANDED

. 9

10 Regina Lewis, proceeding pro se, appeals from the February 18, 2016 decision and order 11 of the United States District Court for th e Southern District of New York (Smith, M.J. ), 12 dismissing her complaint which alleged that her ri ghts were violated when her request to extend 13 her housing voucher term was denied and the vouc her was terminated. We assume the parties’ 14 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. 15

16 We review a district court’ s decision on whether to appoi nt a guardian ad litem under 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) for abuse of discretion. Ferrelli v. River Manor Health 18 Care Ctr. , 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003). “A district c ourt has abused its di scretion if it based 19 its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or 20 rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims

, 21 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (int ernal citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 22

23 Rule 17(c) provides in relevant part that: “[t]he court must appoint a guardian ad litem

− or 24 issue another appropriate order

− to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 25 in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Generally, Ru le 17(c) does not requir e a district court to 26 make a sua sponte determination of competen cy whenever a question exists regarding a 27 plaintiff’s mental competence; instead, the duty to appoint a gua rdian ad litem is triggered by 28 “actual documentation or testim ony” of the pro se litigant’s mental incompetency. Ferrelli , 323 29 F.3d at 201 n.4. As we explained in Ferrelli : 30

31 If a court were presented with ev idence from an appropriate court 32 of record or a relevant public ag ency indicating that the party had 33 been adjudicated incompetent, or if the court received verifiable 34 evidence from a mental health pr ofessional demonstrating that the 35 party is being or has been treated fo r mental illness of the type that 36 would render him or her legally inco mpetent, it likely would be an 37 abuse of the court's discretion not to consider whether Rule 17(c) 38 applied. 39

40 Id . at 201. “Standing alone, however, a litigant’s bi zarre behavior is insu fficient to trigger a 41 mandatory inquiry into hi s or her competency.” Id. at 202. 42

43 The district court here exceeded the bounds of its discretion in not conducting a sua 44 sponte inquiry into Lewis’s competency and wh ether it would be appr opriate to appoint a 45 guardian ad litem. What dis tinguishes this case from Ferrelli is that the district court knew Lewis 463 was previously found incompetent in a recent federa l criminal case. The di strict court also knew 1 that Lewis was in state custody at the Central New York Psychiatri c Center at the time it issued 2 its decision dismissing Lewis’s complaint for failure to prosecute. The Central New York 3 Psychiatric Center houses involunta rily hospitalized inmates, and provides inpatient services for 4 pre-trial detainees from 25 upstate county jails, including evaluations for competency to stand 5 trial. See https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/facilities/cnpc . Taken together, these facts, coupled 6 with Lewis’s inappropriate behavi or, required the district court to undertake an inquiry into 7 Lewis’s competency. 8

9 To be clear, we are not c oncluding that the district court should have found Lewis 10 incompetent, or that it must appoint a guardian ad litem on remand. We hold only that the district 11 court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in not at least considering the possible application of 12 Rule 17(c) given that it knew Lewis was previo usly adjudicated incompetent and that she was 13 presently in the custody of the state in a facility that provides inpa tient mental health services for 14 state prisoners, including competency evaluations. 15

16 As we remand for the district court to cons ider the issue of Lewis’s competency in the 17 first instance, we express no view as to the merits of Lewis’s other challenges to the district 18 court’s dismissal. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is VACATED and 19 REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. 20

21 FOR THE COURT: 22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23

24