Griffin v. Syracuse City School District, 5:24-cv-01044

Pro se plaintiff Yvonne Griffin filed a § 1983 complaint on behalf of her minor daughter C.T.M. against Syracuse City School District alleging the school failed to process a medical homebound application (pregnancy-related), denied educational services during the relevant period, and separate transportation/safety incidents involving other children. Griffin seeks relief on behalf of the minor.
Griffin also moved for in forma pauperis (granted), appointment of pro bono counsel (denied), and ECF login/password (denied without prejudice).
The magistrate judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) but concluded he could not reach merits because a non‑attorney parent may not litigate on behalf of a minor—counsel must represent the child before the court evaluates sufficiency.
The court found Griffin failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to obtain counsel and that, based on the complaint as pled, the minor’s claims did not appear likely to be substantial at this early stage.
Recommendation: deny appointment of counsel, dismiss the complaint without prejudice but without leave to replead until the minor is represented or reaches majority; IFP granted; ECF access denied without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a non‑attorney parent may prosecute a federal action on behalf of a minor	Griffin proceeded pro se on behalf of C.T.M. asserting deprivation of educational services	Defendant implicitly relies on rule that minors must be represented by counsel	Court: Non‑attorney parent may not represent a minor; case cannot proceed on behalf of C.T.M. absent counsel (Cheung/Berrios rule)
Whether court should appoint pro bono counsel for the minor under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)	Griffin asked appointment, citing indigency and need to proceed	Court noted Griffin did not show efforts to retain counsel, evidence of substantive claim thin at this stage	Court: Denied appointment—movant failed to show efforts to secure counsel and failed Hodge threshold that claims seem likely to be of substance
Whether complaint survives initial screening under § 1915(e)(2) (frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from immune defendant)	Griffin alleges denial of services and unsafe environment	Court limited by Cheung (representation) and found claims, as pled, not demonstrably substantial; defendants immune not directly implicated here	Court: Recommended dismissal without prejudice; merits not reached until counsel retained for minor
Request for ECF registration	Griffin requested ECF login/password	Court noted administrative convenience but tied to case status	Court: Denied without prejudice because dismissal recommended

Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found., 906 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990) (non‑attorney parent must be represented by counsel to litigate on behalf of a minor)
Berrios v. New York City Housing Authority, 564 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts may not make merits determinations for claims filed on behalf of minors who are not properly represented)
Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases; threshold that indigent’s position must seem likely to be of substance)
Terminate Control Corp. v. Horowitz, 28 F.3d 1335 (2d Cir. 1994) (factors to consider when deciding appointment of counsel, including complexity and ability to present the case)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court final judgments)
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars federal review of state court judicial decisions)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (U.S. 1991) (judicial immunity protects judges for acts performed in judicial capacity except where acted in clear absence of jurisdiction)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1978) (definition of judicial act and scope of judicial immunity)