Celli v. AG GARLAND AND THE AUSA OF YOUR DISTRICT1

Background

Lucio Celli proceeded without a lawyer and sought injunctive relief concerning his 2021 federal conviction for transmitting threats to injure. He sued at least 18 defendants, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, unidentified and identified federal prosecutors, federal judges, probation officers, former defense lawyers, the Federal Defenders of New York, the United States Marshals, and Randi Weingarten. The complaint appeared to challenge both the criminal proceedings and the results of Celli’s earlier lawsuits.

The court had granted Celli permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), however, the court had to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also addressed Celli’s separate motion seeking recusal of Judges Engelmayer, Seibel, and Rearden and his request for summonses.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted:

- Attempted criminal prosecution: To the extent Celli relied on federal criminal statutes, the court dismissed those claims because a private citizen has no legally recognized right to prosecute another person. The decision to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor. - Federal Tort Claims Act: The court interpreted Celli’s reference to “FTC/Title VI” and probation discrimination as a possible Federal Tort Claims Act claim. It dismissed that claim because the Act authorizes money damages, while Celli sought injunctive relief. - Attorney General Bondi: The court treated Bondi as the successor to former Attorney General Merrick Garland, whom Celli had named in the complaint. It dismissed the claim against Bondi because she was sued in her official capacity, which is protected by sovereign immunity, and the complaint did not plausibly allege conduct by her. - Title VI: The court dismissed the possible discrimination claims against the federal probation officers. Celli did not allege facts showing discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, intentional discrimination, or discrimination in a federally funded program. The court also explained that Title VI does not impose liability on individuals and does not generally cover programs directly administered by the federal government. - 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3): The court construed one count as alleging a conspiracy to deprive Celli of equal protection. It dismissed the claim because the allegations were vague and did not show that the alleged conduct was motivated by racial or another class-based discriminatory purpose. - Claims labeled under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Because the defendants identified in those counts were federal officials, the court treated the allegations as potentially asserting claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The court dismissed those claims because Celli sought only injunctions, while the court stated that money damages are the only remedy available under Bivens in this context. - Federal judges: The court separately held that claims for injunctions against the federal-judge defendants were barred by judicial immunity. Celli did not allege that a declaratory judgment had been violated or that declaratory relief was unavailable. - Nonfederal defendants: The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Celli’s former lawyers, the Federal Defenders of New York, Weingarten, and other nonfederal defendants because Celli did not allege that they acted under state authority. Private lawyers generally are not state actors for purposes of § 1983 merely because they represented a defendant or were court-appointed. - 28 U.S.C. § 530B: The court dismissed the claim based on the statute governing federal government attorneys because that statute does not create a private right for members of the public to sue.

Conviction-Related Relief

The court explained that Celli’s direct appeal had ended and that he was no longer in custody or on supervised release. For that reason, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was not the proper vehicle for challenging his conviction in these circumstances. The court declined to convert the case into a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, a limited procedure for correcting a conviction when the person is no longer in custody. The court stated that any such petition would have to be filed in the court that entered the conviction, the Eastern District of New York, rather than in this case.

Other Motions and Disposition

The court denied Celli’s motion to recuse Judges Engelmayer, Seibel, and Rearden. As to Judge Rearden, the court found that the alleged political support for her appointment was too indirect and speculative to establish grounds for recusal. The court also denied leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden dismissed the action without prejudice to Celli pursuing, outside this court, claims on direct appeal from his conviction or a proper collateral challenge. The court warned that another action challenging the conviction could result in an order barring future filings on that subject without prior permission. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.