Hickman v. McDonnell

Background

Quan[dell] Hickman filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. He sued Assistant District Attorneys Abel McDonnell, Dian Eze, and Henry, and District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Hickman alleged that they committed prosecutorial misconduct in his criminal proceedings in the New York Supreme Court, New York County.

The alleged misconduct included redacting videos and presenting false narratives, destroying or permitting the destruction of video evidence, showing the grand jury selectively edited videos, conspiring with his defense attorney and the attorney’s law firm, and allowing the alleged victim to lie. Hickman sought $1 billion in damages, the defendants’ disbarment, imprisonment, and prosecution, immediate release from custody, dismissal of all charges, and expungement of his records.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under statutes requiring dismissal of certain prisoner complaints filed without prepaying fees. Those statutes require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from defendants protected by immunity.

The court dismissed the damages claims against the prosecutors because the challenged actions were within the scope of their official duties and connected with the judicial phase of the criminal process. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from civil damages suits for such conduct. The court characterized the claims as also frivolous under the applicable screening statute.

The court separately dismissed Hickman’s claims seeking release from custody and dismissal of the criminal charges. It explained that a civil-rights action is not the proper method for challenging the fact or duration of confinement; that type of challenge must be brought through a petition seeking a court order concerning custody. The court declined to treat Hickman’s claims as such a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The opinion further noted that Hickman had since been convicted and that any challenge to his earlier pretrial detention might be moot. It stated that a challenge to his current state custody would instead require a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after available state remedies were exhausted.

The court denied Hickman’s request that the defendants be jailed or prosecuted. It explained that the decision to bring criminal charges rests with prosecutors and cannot be controlled or interfered with by a private citizen or the court.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured, and terminated the other pending matters. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.