Wynder, JR. v. Mateer
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-08899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Wynder v. Mateer, Judge Wood dismissed Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr.’s civil-rights case without prejudice because his pending criminal appeal barred his claims.
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr., Robert Mateer, and Thomas Terminelle; the ruling also concerns any state-law claims Wynder may have asserted.
What happened
In Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr. v. Robert Mateer and Thomas Terminelle, Wynder alleged that two New York City Department of Environmental Protection police officers gave false statements to federal agents, leading to his prosecution and conviction. He sought money damages and a declaration that the defendants violated his rights.
The court treated the allegations as a claim that the defendants fabricated evidence under a federal civil-rights law. It held that the claim was barred because Wynder’s conviction had not been overturned or otherwise invalidated, and a pending appeal did not remove that bar. The court also declined to consider any state-law claims.
Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, denied permission to amend, denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Wynder, JR. v. Mateer · No. 1:24-cv-08899
- Kimba Wood
- June 9, 2025
Background
Kenneth N. Wynder, Jr., who was proceeding without a lawyer and was incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas, sued Robert Mateer and Thomas Terminelle under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion identifies Mateer and Terminelle as New York City Department of Environmental Protection police officers. Wynder alleged that they gave false sworn statements to FBI Special Agent Joseph Duome, causing Wynder to be prosecuted and convicted in a federal criminal case. Wynder sought money damages and a declaration that the defendants violated his rights.
The court stated that Wynder’s federal criminal appeal was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court reviewed the complaint under the prisoner-screening provisions of federal law, which require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or fails to state a legally sufficient claim.
Federal Claims
The court construed the complaint as asserting a fabrication-of-evidence claim under § 1983. It held that the claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Under that rule, a person cannot obtain damages under § 1983 for conduct that would make a criminal conviction or sentence invalid unless the conviction or sentence has already been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise successfully challenged through the required legal process.
The court found that Wynder had not shown that his conviction had been invalidated. His pending direct appeal did not remove the Heck bar. The court also noted that, if Wynder was referring to trial testimony rather than the 2018 statements described in the complaint, witnesses are protected by absolute immunity for claims based on their testimony, even if the testimony was false.
State-Law Claims and Amendment
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Wynder might be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are present; the court concluded that it would not exercise that authority here.
The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that an amendment could not cure the defects in the complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.