Clarimundo DaSilva v. Christopher Smith

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: November 29, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0059-Appeal.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-59-Appeal. (PM 23-1866)

Clarimundo DaSilva :

v. :

Christopher Smith et al. :

ORDER

The plaintiff, Clarimundo DaSilva, who is not represented by counsel, appeals

from Superior Court judgments in favor of the defendants, the Honorable

Christopher Smith (Judge Smith1) and Richard W. Miller, M.D. (Dr. Miller),

following the grant of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. This Court directed the

parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be

summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and

carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that

this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set

forth herein, we affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.

1 The Honorable Christopher Smith is now an Associate Justice of the Superior Court. We mean no disrespect when we refer to him as “Judge Smith.”

-1- On April 21, 2023, plaintiff commenced this action, contending that then-

District Court Judge Smith and Dr. Miller committed various offenses and violated

plaintiff’s constitutional rights in the wake of a determination that plaintiff was

incompetent to stand trial and involuntarily committed to Eleanor Slater Hospital for

treatment.2 The plaintiff appeared to take issue with a January 2021 order in which

Judge Smith found plaintiff not competent to make certain decisions about medical

treatment based upon the recommendation of Dr. Miller. The plaintiff was

eventually released from the hospital after his competency was restored. The

plaintiff seeks sixty million dollars in damages. In the Superior Court, both Judge

Smith and Dr. Miller sought dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure based on Rule 8(a) and

judicial immunity.

On October 31, 2023, the Superior Court granted both motions to dismiss with

prejudice and entered separate judgments in favor of each defendant. The plaintiff

appealed those judgments on the same day. Both defendants separately moved to

dismiss plaintiff’s appeal. The Superior Court, however, denied each of these

motions, and the matter proceeded before this Court.

2 The complaint alleged that plaintiff was held against his will for eight months and that plaintiff was discriminated against based on his race; it also contained other generalized claims of misconduct.

-2- Critically, plaintiff has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the

hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss. Article I, Rule 11(a) of the Supreme

Court Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in part, that “[p]romptly after filing

the notice of appeal the appellant shall comply with the provisions of Rule 10(b) or

(c) and shall take any other action necessary to enable the clerk to assemble and

transmit the record.” Rule 11(a) of Article I of the Supreme Court Rules. The

plaintiff, as the appellant, must “ensure that the record is complete and ready for

transmission.” Small Business Loan Fund Corporation v. Gallant, 795 A.2d 531,

532 (R.I. 2002) (quoting Procopio v. PRM Concrete Corporation, 711 A.2d 650,

651 (R.I. 1998) (mem.)). In the absence of a transcript, this Court cannot determine

how the trial justice came to a decision or, in turn, whether the trial justice erred in

coming to that decision. See 731 Airport Associates, LP v. H & M Realty Associates,

LLC, 799 A.2d 279, 282 (R.I. 2002) (“The deliberate decision to prosecute an appeal

without providing the Court with a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court is

risky business.”). That is true in the case at bar; we are unable to evaluate the merits

of plaintiff’s claims, particularly because any error alleged to have been committed

by the lower court is not apparent from either plaintiff’s papers or his oral argument.

The Court has “no alternative but to deny the appeal and uphold the trial justice’s

findings.” Palange v. Palange, 243 A.3d 783, 784 (R.I. 2021) (mem.) (quoting

Calise v. Curtin, 900 A.2d 1164, 1169 (R.I. 2006)). Consequently, we do so here.

-3- Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgments of the

Superior Court. The record shall be returned to the Superior Court.

Entered as an Order of this Court this day of November, 2024.

By Order,

_________________________ Clerk

-4- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Clarimundo DaSilva v. Christopher Smith et al.

No. 2024-59-Appeal. Case Number (PM 23-1866)

Date Order Filed November 29, 2024

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Joseph McBurney

For Plaintiff:

Clarimundo DaSilva, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Defendants:

Christine A. Stowell, Esq. Patrick Reynolds, Department of Attorney General

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)