Nickelson v. DeMarchena

Background

Darrell Wendell Nickelson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alberto DeMarchena, Scott Callahan, and Darcel D. Clark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. The complaint alleged that DeMarchena and Callahan, identified as New York City Police Department officers, entered a living space in the Bronx, searched it without permission or a search warrant, and arrested Nickelson. Nickelson sought money damages for his arrest and later detention. Documents attached to the complaint indicated that his criminal case appeared to be ongoing.

The court had previously allowed Nickelson to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In reviewing the complaint, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, while still requiring a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief.

Claims Against DeMarchena and Callahan

The court held that the allegations against the two police officers did not provide enough factual detail to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nickelson stated conclusions that the officers illegally entered a home and arrested him without cause, but he did not explain sufficiently what happened before, during, or after the arrest or what each officer personally did. The complaint also did not identify whose home the officers entered or whether it belonged to Nickelson.

The court therefore granted Nickelson leave to file an amended complaint addressing the claims against the officers. The court did not rule that the officers were liable or that the claims could never succeed; it found that the existing allegations did not allow the court to determine whether Nickelson could state a valid claim.

Claims Against Clark

The court dismissed the claims against Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark. It concluded that the claims were based on actions within the scope of Clark’s official duties and connected to Nickelson’s ongoing criminal proceedings. Under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, prosecutors are generally protected from civil damages suits for conduct closely tied to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court characterized the claims against Clark as seeking money from an immune defendant and as frivolous under the cited statutory screening provisions.

Leave to Amend and Instructions

Nickelson was given 60 days from the date of the order to submit an amended complaint concerning the NYPD officers only. The amended complaint must name the defendants in both the caption and the statement of claim, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, and provide relevant dates, times, locations, injuries, and requested relief. It must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Nickelson wants to preserve must be repeated.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Nickelson did not file an amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court granted leave to amend the claims against DeMarchena and Callahan, dismissed the claims against Clark, and imposed the stated 60-day deadline for amendment. Judge Kimba M. Wood signed the order.