Davis v. NYS Office of Children and Family Services
2:20-cv-01480
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 24, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Rolanda J. Davis filed a complaint on behalf of herself and her minor children alleging: excessive force during November 2003 confinements, due-process violations for removals of child SMD (Sept. 21, 2017) and another son (July 26, 2018), and unspecified inadequate medical care while detained.
- Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis (IFP) application but provided only $0/none responses and omitted key financial details and the incarceration question; the filing was mailed from Norfolk City Jail.
- The Court found the IFP submission insufficient to show indigence and denied IFP without prejudice, directing Plaintiff to file the AO‑239 Long Form within 21 days or remit the $400 filing fee.
- The Court held that a non‑lawyer parent cannot litigate civil rights claims on behalf of minor children and dismissed any claims asserted on behalf of the children without prejudice.
- The Court considered but declined to appoint counsel for the children (no right to counsel and complaint lacked plausible claims); it warned Plaintiff to keep her address current and that failure to comply may result in dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
- The Court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (in forma pauperis status for appeal denied).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of IFP application | Submitted IFP form with $0 answers and minimal info | Responses do not establish indigence | IFP denied without prejudice; must file AO‑239 Long Form in 21 days or pay $400 |
| Pro se parent suing for minors | Filed claims on behalf of minor children | Non‑attorney parent cannot represent minors in federal court | Claims on behalf of children dismissed without prejudice |
| Appointment of counsel for minors | (sought court assistance implicitly) | No constitutional right to counsel; complaint not plausibly meritorious | Court declined to appoint counsel |
| Address/update & prosecution risk | Provided addresses but omitted incarceration question; did not keep record fully current | Parties must keep court apprised of address; failure to comply may impede case | Court mailed order to both addresses and warned failure to comply will result in dismissal under Rule 41(b); appeal not in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990) (non‑attorney parent may not bring suit on behalf of minor child in federal court)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (appeal in forma pauperis requires showing of good faith)