Matthew v. Koos Kent

Background

Matthew Izeh, who was detained at the Robert N. Davoren Center on Rikers Island and represented himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named his criminal defense attorney, Gary Koos Kent; an unidentified New York County assistant district attorney; New York County Supreme Court Judge Weston Coritt; and Kelley Minogue, identified in the complaint as a district attorney reporter.

Izeh challenged his ongoing state criminal proceedings. He alleged that Kent had filed a motion to dismiss Indictment No. 71557/24 based on New York's speedy-trial law, and that the state court granted the motion but Kent refused to formally call for the dismissal. Izeh sought recognition of the indictment's dismissal and release from custody. The court noted that public records showed two pending indictments charging Izeh with persistent sexual abuse and that he remained in custody under both indictments.

Court's analysis

The court screened Izeh's complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review certain prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that are legally insufficient, frivolous, malicious, or seek relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Interference with state proceedings. The court applied the rule that federal courts generally must not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. It explained that intervention may be possible in special circumstances involving bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Izeh alleged no facts showing those circumstances. It therefore declined to intervene and dismissed his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Request for release. The court explained that a person generally cannot obtain release from custody through a Section 1983 action. That type of relief must instead be sought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure used to challenge the fact or duration of custody. The court stated that a state pretrial detainee seeking such relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must first exhaust available state-court remedies, including seeking relief in the state courts and, if necessary, appealing to New York's highest court.

Because the complaint did not show that Izeh had exhausted his state remedies, the court declined to convert, or recharacterize, the Section 1983 complaint as a § 2241 petition. It dismissed any habeas claims without prejudice to refiling after exhaustion.

Disposition

The court dismissed Izeh's Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It dismissed any habeas claims without prejudice. The court denied leave to amend because it found that amendment could not cure the complaint's defects.

The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Izeh had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Izeh permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case.