Felicie v. James

Background

Bobby Felicie, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bronx County Supreme Court Clerk Latisha Brown, New York State Division of Human Rights Regional Director Chelsea John, and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. The court had previously allowed Felicie to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

The handwritten complaint was largely difficult to read and contained few facts. Attachments indicated that the allegations related to four Bronx County Supreme Court matters and proceedings before the New York State Division of Human Rights. Felicie alleged that defendants withheld privileged information, disclosed confidential medical information, shared unspecified documents, and allowed documents to be posted on a public-access website. He asserted equal-protection and due-process violations and sought declaratory relief, an order concerning alleged health-information rights, and damages. He also moved for appointment of pro bono counsel.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. It also must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented filings generously, the complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed claims seeking federal-court intervention in Felicie’s state-court proceedings under the Anti-Injunction Act, which generally bars federal courts from stopping state-court proceedings unless a statutory exception applies. The court also said that the doctrine requiring federal courts to refrain from interfering in certain ongoing state proceedings applied. To the extent Felicie asked the federal court to review or reject final state-court rulings, the court held those claims barred by the rule that federal district courts cannot review state-court judgments.

The court separately dismissed the claims against Brown because court clerks have absolute judicial immunity for discretionary functions closely connected to the judicial process, and Felicie did not allege that Brown acted outside that role. It dismissed the claims against John because the alleged conduct was within her official duties and connected to proceedings before the Division of Human Rights, making the requested monetary relief barred by immunity. It dismissed Felicie’s damages claims against James because the Eleventh Amendment generally prevents federal suits against states and state officials in their official capacities, and the court said New York had not waived that protection and Congress had not removed it for these claims.

Other Motions and Disposition

Because the complaint was being dismissed for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds, the court denied the motion for pro bono counsel without prejudice. The court granted Felicie leave to file a neatly handwritten amended complaint within 30 days to replead his claims.

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the counsel motion and keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.