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 ELECTRONIC 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. 

1 At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 

2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 

30th 3 day of June, two thousand seventeen. 

4 

5 Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, 

6 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

7 Circuit Judges. 

 LAWRENCE J. VILARDO,1 8 

9 District Judge. 

10 

11 _____________________________________________________ 

12 

13 REGINA LEWIS, 

14 

15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

16 

17 v. 16-613-cv 

18 

19 NEWBURGH HOUSING AUTHORITY, MARC STARLING, 

20 In his official capacity as Executive Director of the 

21 Newburgh Housing Authority, 

22 

23 Defendants-Appellees. 

24 _____________________________________________________ 

25 

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

27 

 

1

 Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 

sitting by designation. 
2 

1 Appearing for Appellees: Jeffrey S. Sculley, Rider, Weiner & Frankel, P.C., New Windsor, 

2 NY. 

3 

4 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Smith, 

5 M.J.). 

6 

7 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

8 AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is VACATED and 

9 REMANDED. 

10 

11 Regina Lewis, proceeding pro se, appeals from the February 18, 2016 decision and order 

12 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Smith, M.J.), 

13 dismissing her complaint which alleged that her rights were violated when her request to extend 

14 her housing voucher term was denied and the voucher was terminated. We assume the parties’ 

15 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. 

16 

17 We review a district court’s decision on whether to appoint a guardian ad litem under 

18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) for abuse of discretion. Ferrelli v. River Manor Health 

19 Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2003). “A district court has abused its discretion if it based 

20 its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence or 

21 rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 

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

23 

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

25 issue another appropriate order−to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented 

26 in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). Generally, Rule 17(c) does not require a district court to 

27 make a sua sponte determination of competency whenever a question exists regarding a 

28 plaintiff’s mental competence; instead, the duty to appoint a guardian ad litem is triggered by 

29 “actual documentation or testimony” of the pro se litigant’s mental incompetency. Ferrelli, 323 

30 F.3d at 201 n.4. As we explained in Ferrelli: 

31 

32 If a court were presented with evidence from an appropriate court 

33 of record or a relevant public agency indicating that the party had 

34 been adjudicated incompetent, or if the court received verifiable 

35 evidence from a mental health professional demonstrating that the 

36 party is being or has been treated for mental illness of the type that 

37 would render him or her legally incompetent, it likely would be an 

38 abuse of the court's discretion not to consider whether Rule 17(c) 

39 applied. 

40 

41 Id. at 201. “Standing alone, however, a litigant’s bizarre behavior is insufficient to trigger a 

42 mandatory inquiry into his or her competency.” Id. at 202. 

43 

44 The district court here exceeded the bounds of its discretion in not conducting a sua 

45 sponte inquiry into Lewis’s competency and whether it would be appropriate to appoint a 

46 guardian ad litem. What distinguishes this case from Ferrelli is that the district court knew Lewis 
3 

1 was previously found incompetent in a recent federal criminal case. The district court also knew 

2 that Lewis was in state custody at the Central New York Psychiatric Center at the time it issued 

3 its decision dismissing Lewis’s complaint for failure to prosecute. The Central New York 

4 Psychiatric Center houses involuntarily hospitalized inmates, and provides inpatient services for 

5 pre-trial detainees from 25 upstate county jails, including evaluations for competency to stand 

6 trial. See https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/facilities/cnpc. Taken together, these facts, coupled 

7 with Lewis’s inappropriate behavior, required the district court to undertake an inquiry into 

8 Lewis’s competency. 

9 

10 To be clear, we are not concluding that the district court should have found Lewis 

11 incompetent, or that it must appoint a guardian ad litem on remand. We hold only that the district 

12 court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in not at least considering the possible application of 

13 Rule 17(c) given that it knew Lewis was previously adjudicated incompetent and that she was 

14 presently in the custody of the state in a facility that provides inpatient mental health services for 

15 state prisoners, including competency evaluations. 

16 

17 As we remand for the district court to consider the issue of Lewis’s competency in the 

18 first instance, we express no view as to the merits of Lewis’s other challenges to the district 

19 court’s dismissal. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is VACATED and 

20 REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

21 

22 FOR THE COURT: 

23 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

24