Sanders v. Brown, No. 1:2018cv05079 - Document 8 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: The complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed against defendant District Attorney Richard A. Brown pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (b); 1915(e)(2)(b). The case is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing a written application in his prior case, Sanders v. Siano, 11-CV-2203 (RRM)(LB), to lift the stay imposed. Any claims related to his 2010 conviction should be filed in Sanders v. Siano , 11-CV-2203(RRM)(LB). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).SO Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 10/29/2018. (Tavarez, Jennifer)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sanders v. Brown Doc. 8 FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE US DiSTR!CT COURT E D.N.Y. * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UL: f 3 1 701R * BROOKLYN OFFICE ----------------------------------------------------------X OSCAR L. SANDERS, MEMO DUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. 18-CV- ·079 (WFK) (VMS) RICHARD A. BROWN, Queens Di~trict Attorney, Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------X WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge: On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Oscar L. Sanders, currently ncarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, filed this prose action against defendant Rich rd A. Brown alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. On September 24, 2018, the Co granted plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint is dismiss d as set forth below. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that his 2010 conviction was dismissed in 2 16. Compl. at 3-4, ECF No. 1. In support of his claim, plaintiff attaches a New York Court of peals decision reversing his conviction. See Pl. Exhibit A, People v. Sanders, 26 N.Y.3d 773 (2016) (holding that warrantless search and seizure of plaintiff's clothing left in plastic J g on floor of hospital room was unlawful). Plaintiff alleges he was released from custody but d es not provide the date of release. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff is now incarcerated on a separate co viction. Compl. at 1. In 2011, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against Polic Officer Anthony Siano, District Attorney Richard A. Brown and Pamela Jordan based on th same arrest at issue here. See Sanders v. Siano, 11-CV-2203 (RRM) (LB) (filed Apr. 12,201 ). The complaint was Dockets.Justia.com dismissed as to Brown and Jordan, but the complaint was allowed to proceed as to Police Officer Anthony Siano. See 11-CV-2203, Memorandum and Order, ECF N . 6. The case was administratively closed until the conclusion of laintiffs appeal of his conviction. See l 1-CV-2203, ECF No. 23. Although a decision on laintiffs direct appeal was issued on February 23, 2016, Pl. Exhibit A, plaintiff did not move to lift the stay imposed in Sanders v. Siano, 11-CV-2203 (RRM)(LB). STANDARD OF REVIEW In reviewing the complaint, the Court is mindful that plainti is proceeding pro se and that her pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards than fo al pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); accord Erickson v Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). A complailt, however, must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." ell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibilit when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inferenc that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 ( 009). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'label and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. " Id (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a complaint is insufficient to state a cl ·m "if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement."' Id. (quoting wombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Nonetheless, the Court must screen a civil complaint brought by pri oners against a governmental entity or its agents and dismiss the complaint or any ortion of the complaint that is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief ay be granted." 28 U.S.C. 2 §§ 1915A(a) & (b)(l);see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636,639 (2d Ci. 2007). Similarly, pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the court must dismiss the action fon the same reasons or if the plaintiff "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune fro such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). DISCUSSION Plaintiff alleges malicious prosecution and false arrest which are claims cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This section provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordin custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the Distri subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the dep rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constit shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, s other proper proceeding for redress.... 1 ce, regulation, t of Columbia, nited States or ivation of any tion and laws, it in equity, or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute "creates no substantive rights; it pro ides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3 137, 142 (2d Cir. 1999). In order to maintain a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must show that the d fondant (a) acted under color of state law (b) to deprive the plaintiff of a right arising under he Constitution or federal law. Cornejo v. Bell, 592 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Pitch ll v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994)). To prevail on a Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecutio , the plaintiff must show "( 1) that the defendant commenced or continued a criminal proceed· g against him; (2) that the proceeding was terminated in the plaintiffs favor; (3) that there wa no probable cause for the proceeding; and (4) that the proceeding was instituted with malice." Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F .3d 139, 143 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). However, even if these actors are met, prosecutors 3 enjoy absolute immunity from malicious prosecution claims as long they are acting within the traditional prosecutorial function. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Simon v. City ofNew York, 727 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir. 2013); Shmueli v. City ifNew York, 424 F.3d 231, 236 (2d Cir. 2005); Bernard v. Cty. ofSuffolk, 356 F.3d 495, 504 (2, Cir. 2004). Plaintiff's complaint cannot proceed against District Attorn] Richard A. Brown. First, plaintiff fails to allege any facts to show that defendant Brown was personally liable for the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. See generally Comp. Rather, it appears that plaintiff names District Attorney Brown based on his role as a supe1isor. The United States Supreme Court has held that "[b]ecause vicarious liability is inappli,able to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, throu the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution," and rejected the ar ument that "a supervisor's mere knowledge of his subordinate' s discriminatory purpose amoun s to the supervisor's violating the Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77. Since the cl ·m against this supervisor defendant, as presently stated, can be supported only on the basis of he respondeat superior or vicarious liability doctrines, which are not applicable to § 1983 actio s, the claims against defendant Brown are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b); 1915(e)(2)(B). Second, it is clear that to the extent plaintiff sues District Att rney Brown for performing traditional prosecutorial functions, he is entitled to prosecutorial im unity. "Prosecutorial immunity from § 1983 liability is broadly defined, covering 'virtuall all acts, regardless of motivation, associated with [the prosecutor's] function as an advoca e." Hill v. City ofNew York, 45 F.3d 653, 661 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Such prot ted conduct includes when the prosecutor "initiat[es] and pursu[es] a criminal prosecution," see Shmue/i, 424 F.3d at 236 (quotation omitted), and acts undertaken "in preparing for the initiat on of judicial proceedings or 4 for trial," see id. at 236-37 (quotation omitted), even if the prosecuto makes false statements during judicial proceedings, see Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478,490 (1 91), knowingly uses false testimony, Shmueli, 424 F.3d at 237, deliberately withholds exculpa ory evidence, id., or engages in malicious prosecution, id. at 238. See also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 43 n.33. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismi sed against defendant District Attorney Richard A. Brown pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (b); 1915(e)(2)(b). However, the case is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff Iling a written application in his prior case, Sanders v. Siano, 11-CV-2203 (RRM) (LB), to lift he stay imposed. Any claims related to his 2010 conviction should be filed in Sanders v. Si no, 11-CV-2203 (RRM)(LB). 1 The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that y appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis sta us is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (196 ). SO ORDERED. s/WFK United States District J Dated: October 29, 2018 Brooklyn, New York 1 The case was assigned by random selection to this docket rather t an to Judge Mauskopf as a related case because plaintiff failed to notify the Court that he had a rior case, and when he filed this new action, his name and prison identification number did not atch his prior case. 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
