Echevarria v. Tejada

Background

Edwin Echevarria, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed an amended complaint against Charles J. Tejada, identified as a Judge of the Court of Claims, and Letitia James, the Attorney General of the State of New York. Echevarria sought a declaration that his conviction violated the United States and New York Constitutions because Tejada allegedly lacked “a lawful contract” when he presided over Echevarria’s criminal trial. Echevarria also asked the court to declare that Tejada’s orders should be set aside and denied full faith and credit.

Echevarria separately claimed that James failed to prosecute Tejada for allegedly impersonating a New York Supreme Court Justice. On December 13, 2023, the court dismissed the amended complaint. It ruled that a claim challenging the fact or duration of confinement must be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a petition seeking relief from allegedly unlawful custody—rather than as a civil-rights action. The court also ruled that the Attorney General was absolutely immune from suit for exercising prosecutorial discretion. The dismissal was without prejudice to Echevarria raising his conviction challenge in a habeas petition. The opinion states that an earlier federal habeas petition had been dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies and did not appear to have been decided on its merits.

Rule 60(b) motion

Echevarria filed a letter and a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to seek relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons. He argued that the court had not reached the merits of his claims, was biased in favor of Tejada, overlooked that he sought only declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and improperly failed to require James to answer.

The court concluded that, even under a liberal reading of the motion, Echevarria had not shown that any of the first five grounds in Rule 60(b) applied. Those grounds concern mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, and circumstances such as satisfaction or reversal of an earlier judgment.

The court also considered Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for other reasons justifying it but requires circumstances that are both extraordinary and different from the grounds in clauses one through five. The court found that Echevarria had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. It further reaffirmed that a declaration challenging the lawfulness of his conviction would challenge the fact of his confinement, making a habeas petition the only potential federal avenue for that relief rather than a declaratory judgment action.

Disposition

The court denied Echevarria’s Rule 60(b) motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.