Lilia Angello v. Barrett D. Mack, Esq., et al.

Summary

The Northern District of New York dismissed sua sponte, without prejudice, a pro se plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against attorneys involved in her state-court matrimonial proceedings. The court held that the complaint failed to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law or conspired with a state actor, and it denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order as moot. The court granted thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. Private attorneys and law firms do not act under color of state law and are not state actors for purposes of § 1983 merely by representing a client in state-court proceedings, holding state-issued licenses, or using or misusing state courts.
2. A § 1983 conspiracy claim requires facts showing an agreement between a state actor and a private party to act in concert to inflict an unconstitutional injury, an overt act in furtherance of that goal, and resulting damages; conclusory assertions of concerted action are insufficient.
3. A district court may sua sponte dismiss a fee-paid complaint without notice when it is unmistakably clear that the case is frivolous or that the court lacks jurisdiction.
4. A pro se plaintiff should generally be given an opportunity to amend, unless amendment would be futile; here, the court granted thirty days to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Plaintiff's private matrimonial attorneys by alleging action under color of state law.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded a § 1983 conspiracy by alleging an agreement between the defendants and a state actor to deprive her of a constitutional right.
3. Whether the complaint should be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous and whether Plaintiff's request for temporary injunctive relief should be denied as moot.
4. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed