Bell Bey v. Ferdinand

Background

Cooleridge Bell Bey proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. His 122-page amended complaint named housing-court judges Tracy Ferdinand and Frances Ortiz, Chief Clerk Alia Razzaq, private housing-related defendants, process server Samuel Vazquez, Police Officers Tobias and Schatz, and Marshal Edward F. Guida. The complaint referred to constitutional and federal-law sources, and the court construed it as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute, and state law.

The allegations concerned a housing-court proceeding involving an apartment at 60 West 142nd Street, Apt. 5L, New York, New York. The attached records showed that the Manhattan Housing Court awarded possession to New Savoy Park Portfolio LLC, issued an eviction warrant, and later denied a request to restore possession after the warrant was executed. Bell Bey also alleged that Police Officers Tobias and Schatz assaulted or otherwise used force against him and failed to record complaints about vandalism and theft.

Reasons for dismissal

The court dismissed any claims seeking the federal criminal prosecution of defendants or other people for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A private person cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution because the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

The court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction any claims asking the federal court to review or overturn final Manhattan Housing Court orders or judgments concerning Bell Bey’s eviction. The court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents a federal district court from functioning as an appeal court for a final state-court judgment.

The court dismissed Bell Bey’s § 1983 claims against Judges Ortiz and Ferdinand, Chief Clerk Razzaq, and Marshal Guida under judicial or related immunity. The court found that the alleged conduct involved judicial proceedings or discretionary functions closely connected to the judicial process, and Bell Bey did not allege facts showing that these defendants acted outside their judicial responsibilities or jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the private defendants because Bell Bey did not allege facts showing that they acted under color of state law. Acting under color of state law is a required element of a § 1983 claim and generally means that the defendant acted as a state actor or through state authority.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Officers Tobias and Schatz. Bell Bey did not allege enough facts showing their direct and personal involvement in violating his constitutional rights. Regarding any excessive-force claims, he also did not allege facts showing that the officers’ actions were objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court dismissed the action but granted Bell Bey 30 days to file a second amended complaint limited to repleading claims against Tobias and Schatz. If he does not file that complaint on time, the court will direct the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the claims for the reasons stated in the order and will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The Clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.

The court also warned that continued nonmeritorious litigation could lead to an order barring Bell Bey from filing new civil actions without prior court permission when seeking to proceed without prepaying fees.