Slade v. United States

Background

Ricco Devon Slade filed the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law that permits claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. The defendants were the United States of America, the State of New York, Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz, and Queens Supreme Criminal Court Judge Toni Cimino. Slade alleged that he voluntarily gave up his United States citizenship and became a member of the Baha’i Faith and a citizen of the Baha’i World Community in February 2020. He alleged that he was arrested on December 28, 2022, based on the presumption that he remained a United States citizen, and that he was forced to accept an eight-and-a-half-year plea deal after more than 16 months on Rikers Island. He asserted claims involving religious freedom and a right to expatriation. He sought money damages and unspecified injunctive relief.

Screening standard

Because Slade was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although pleadings filed without a lawyer receive a generous reading, they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Reasons for dismissal

The court dismissed all claims against the United States under sovereign immunity, which generally prevents suits against the federal government unless immunity has been waived. It also dismissed the claims against New York under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state instrumentalities from suits in federal court. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it for claims under Section 1983.

The court dismissed the damages claims against District Attorney Katz because prosecutors have absolute immunity for actions within their official duties that are connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. To the extent Slade sued Katz in her official capacity, the court also ruled that the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims. The court dismissed the claims against Judge Cimino because judges are absolutely immune from damages claims based on actions within their judicial responsibilities. The court also found no allegations showing that Cimino acted outside her judicial role or jurisdiction, and Slade did not allege the circumstances that could permit injunctive relief against a judicial officer under Section 1983.

The court dismissed any request for injunctive relief aimed at intervening in Slade’s pending state criminal proceeding. Under the rule from Younger v. Harris, federal courts generally may not stop a pending state criminal case absent facts showing bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Slade had not alleged those circumstances.

The court separately addressed any request for release from custody. It ruled that Section 1983 could not provide release and that such relief had to be sought through a federal detention-review petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254, depending on the nature and stage of the custody challenge. The court declined to treat Slade’s allegations as such a petition because he did not allege that he had exhausted available state remedies. The court stated that he must first pursue those remedies before returning to federal court with an appropriate petition.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under sovereign immunity, the Eleventh Amendment, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, immunity from monetary relief, frivolousness, and the rule requiring abstention from interfering with the state criminal proceeding. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.