Hickman v. Biben

Background

Quandell Hickman, who was incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, filed the action without a lawyer. He sued Judges Ellen Biben and Alonso Martinez, and Court Reporters Trina Otha and Shanna Russo, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He sought $1 billion in damages, release from custody, dismissal of his pending state criminal charges, and an order that the defendants be disbarred, fired, jailed, and prosecuted.

Hickman alleged that events in February and March 2024 at a Manhattan courthouse involved his continued detention, his lawyer’s departure from his case, a prosecutor’s verbal application based on confidential information, and the handling of his motions. He did not mention Court Reporters Otha or Russo in the factual portion of his complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or is within a category the court cannot hear.

Claims against the judges. The court held that Judges Biben and Martinez had absolute judicial immunity from Hickman’s claims for damages. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from damages claims based on actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities, including actions arising from cases before them. The court found that Hickman did not allege facts showing that either judge acted outside a judicial role or without jurisdiction. It therefore dismissed the claims against both judges because they sought money from immune defendants and, on that basis, were also considered frivolous under the prisoner-litigation statute.

Claims against the court reporters. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Otha and Russo for failure to state a claim. Hickman did not allege what either reporter personally did or failed to do. The court also explained that court reporters are generally protected from damages claims unless their conduct violated clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights, and that there is no constitutional right to a perfectly accurate transcript. Hickman did not identify a rights violation based on the reporters’ conduct or any transcript errors.

Requests for release and dismissal of charges. The court held that a civil-rights action is not the proper method for seeking release from custody or dismissal of criminal charges. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a proceeding used to challenge the fact or duration of custody—is the appropriate vehicle for a custody challenge. The court also stated that claims generally must first be presented to the state courts. Because Hickman did not explain a basis for release or dismissal and did not allege that he had presented those claims to the state court, the court declined to convert the action into a habeas petition. It dismissed the § 1983 claims seeking release without prejudice to raising them in a habeas petition.

Request to prosecute the defendants. The court denied Hickman’s request that the defendants be criminally prosecuted and jailed. It explained that the decision to bring criminal charges belongs to prosecutors, not private citizens or the court.

Amendment and final disposition. The court declined to give Hickman permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be fixed by amendment. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.