Perry v. Hardy

Background

Kahreem Perry, who was incarcerated at Cayuga Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against Glenn F. Hardy and Norman Williams. Perry alleged that the defendants, who at different times represented him in criminal proceedings, provided ineffective assistance and conspired to violate his federal rights. He asserted due-process and equal-protection violations, malicious prosecution, and sought money damages.

Perry alleged that Hardy “colluded with” Assistant District Attorney Barbour. The complaint’s stated support for that allegation was that Hardy referred to Barbour as his “colleague” during court proceedings. The complaint also included more than 100 pages of state-court criminal-proceeding transcripts and part of an affidavit supporting a search warrant. The court noted that Perry had an existing case involving the same arrest, which was stayed pending the outcome of his state criminal appeal.

Court’s Analysis

Because Perry was permitted to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts interpret self-represented pleadings generously, a complaint still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

For the Section 1983 claims, the court explained that Perry had to allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by someone acting under color of state law—that is, using authority attributable to the state. Private attorneys generally are not state actors merely because they represent a criminal defendant, whether they are privately retained, appointed by a court, or public defenders. Perry did not allege facts showing that Hardy or Williams acted under color of state law while representing him or facts supporting a conspiracy. The court found that the allegation based on Hardy’s use of “colleague” was vague and unsupported, and dismissed the Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim.

For the Section 1985(3) claims, the court required facts suggesting a conspiracy, an objective of denying equal protection or equal legal privileges, an act advancing the conspiracy, an injury, and a racial or other class-based discriminatory motive. The court found Perry’s conspiracy allegations conclusory, vague, and lacking detail, and dismissed the Section 1985 claims for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Perry might have asserted. The court also declined to give Perry permission to amend because it found that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment.

The complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.