Jones v. Fortino — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026)
Daniel Jones is in New York's Article 10 civil-confinement system, which provides for yearly psychiatric examinations and possible court review of continued confinement. He says the Mental Hygiene Legal Service cited a conflict, and that he faced parts of the annual review process without a lawyer. An earlier federal case records a similar dispute over his representation, including a request for substitute counsel. In this newer suit, Jones named legal-service officials, psychiatric evaluators, and court personnel, claiming they hindered his access to court. A federal judge dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice in March 2025, finding that it failed to state a constitutional claim under Section 1915. The appeal asks whether that screening could rely on Younger abstention, and whether Jones alleged a federal rights violation rather than only a denial of counsel under state law.
Jones v. Fortino (No. 25-913) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026.
- 0:00Introduction
- 1:50Advocate — Evan Bianchi
- 4:06Younger abstention and Section 1915
- 15:42Section 1983 and the asserted right