Bonano v. Grant

Background

Michael Bonano, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYPD Officer Darrion Grant, Assistant District Attorney Chelsea Eret, Ousseymenou Diop, and unidentified supervisors from the NYPD’s 30th Precinct and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Bonano alleged that, on March 22, 2022, Diop attempted to load Bonano’s suitcase into an SUV. Bonano said he displayed a kitchen knife to protect his property and later displayed it again when Diop allegedly charged at him. Officer Grant pointed a gun at Bonano and ordered him to drop the knife. Bonano was detained and later charged with menacing and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. He alleged that the charges were fabricated to interfere with his participation in a judicial diversion and drug-treatment program. The charges were later dismissed.

Bonano asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and conspiracy. He also asserted unspecified state-law claims and sought $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages. He asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Filing-fee ruling

The Prison Litigation Reform Act contains a three-strikes rule that generally prevents a detained prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees after three qualifying prior dismissals. The court considered two earlier orders that had found Bonano subject to that rule. It concluded those orders did not prevent him from contesting his status because one case did not give him a full opportunity to respond, and the fee ruling in the other case was not necessary to the final judgment.

After reviewing Bonano’s earlier litigation, including cases filed under other names, the court found only two qualifying strikes. It determined that other potential dismissals were not strikes because they involved mixed grounds, a habeas petition, cases filed when Bonano was not a prisoner, or other nonqualifying dispositions. The court therefore granted Bonano’s request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion noted that this permission could later be revoked if a qualifying third strike were identified.

Federal claims

The court screened the complaint under the prisoner-litigation statutes, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant.

For false arrest, the court held that the alleged facts showed probable cause to believe Bonano had committed a crime when officers saw him draw a knife. The court said probable cause defeated the false-arrest claim even if Diop also could have been arrested and even if Bonano protested his innocence. The court also rejected any possible selective-enforcement claim because Bonano did not allege facts showing that he was treated differently because of an impermissible reason, such as race or religion.

The court concluded that Bonano’s malicious-prosecution claim also failed because the allegations established probable cause to charge him. Although the dismissal of the criminal case could satisfy the favorable-termination requirement, probable cause was independently fatal to the claim.

The court dismissed the abuse-of-process claim because Bonano’s allegation that defendants sought to interfere with his judicial-diversion and drug-treatment opportunities was conclusory. It did not identify factual details about what the defendants did, said, or failed to do that would make the alleged improper purpose plausible. The court also dismissed the conspiracy claim because it consisted of vague and unsupported assertions and did not allege facts showing an agreement, coordinated unconstitutional conduct, or an act taken to advance such a plan.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case.

Because Bonano might be able to allege additional facts supporting a federal claim, the court granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court stated that, if he did not do so, it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and directed that the matter remain open until a civil judgment is entered. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.