Pinkney v. City of Jersey City Department of Housing & Economic Development
Docket: No. 00-2378
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; July 9, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Steven Pinkney filed a complaint on behalf of his allegedly mentally incompetent daughter, Danielle Pinkney, and his brother-in-law, Michael Hammock, claiming violations of the HOME Investment Partnership Act related to a mortgage closing in Jersey City, New Jersey, seeking $300,000 in damages. The District Court dismissed the complaint on June 30, 2000, citing a lack of diversity and federal question jurisdiction, as the Act does not allow for a private right of action in federal court. The plaintiffs sought reconsideration, asserting civil rights violations tied to retaliation against Steven Pinkney for community activism, but the District Court denied this motion on August 1, 2000, finding insufficient evidence that the defendants' alleged retaliatory actions were motivated by the plaintiffs' conduct.
The appeal raised the issue of whether Steven Pinkney was authorized to represent Danielle, as a guardian or parent cannot represent an incompetent adult without legal counsel, as established in Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pa. There was no evidence of Danielle's mental incompetence or a state court-appointed guardian. If Danielle is competent, she may sue independently, invalidating Steven's claims on her behalf. If she is incompetent, he could represent her but must retain a lawyer. The court indicated that a power of attorney from an allegedly incompetent adult raises questions about its validity and reiterated that even if Steven is a proper representative, he cannot act as her counsel without legal representation.
If a power of attorney is invalid and Danielle lacks a duly appointed representative, she can only sue through a next friend or a guardian ad litem, according to Fed. R.Civ. P. 17(c). Steven Pinkney, a non-attorney, improperly sought to represent Danielle, an allegedly incompetent adult, violating the Osei-Afriyie ruling. Consequently, the District Court incorrectly dismissed Danielle Pinkney’s claims on the merits without addressing proper representation. The judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded to resolve representation issues. Appellant’s motion for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice, allowing for renewal after representation matters are settled. Steven Pinkney claims Danielle has cerebral palsy, referencing a 1995 letter from Dr. Arnold J. Slovis that indicates she may be slightly retarded; however, this does not sufficiently prove mental incompetency. Regarding claims for Michael Hammock, if he has the capacity to sue, he can represent himself or have legal counsel, but Steven Pinkney cannot represent him in this case.
