Henriquez v. Ryan
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Henriquez v. Ryan, Judge Crotty dismissed Henriquez’s federal complaint and denied her request to appeal without paying filing fees.
Yanely Henriquez’s federal complaint was dismissed against Jeremiah Ryan. The order also denied Henriquez permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
Yanely Henriquez v. Jeremiah Ryan concerned Henriquez’s request that the Justice Department prosecute Ryan for allegedly violating her daughter’s civil rights and the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act. Henriquez alleged that Ryan fatally shot her 16-year-old daughter in 2022; the opinion states that Ryan was convicted and imprisoned.
The court ruled that a private person cannot start or force a criminal prosecution. It also treated Henriquez’s civil-rights allegations as claims under a federal law allowing suits against people acting for state governments, and found that she had not alleged that Ryan worked for a government body. The court dismissed the complaint and declined to allow an amended complaint.
Judge Paul A. Crotty entered the order. He directed the clerk to enter judgment and denied Henriquez permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Henriquez v. Ryan · No. 1:25-cv-02126
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 12, 2025
Background
Yanely Henriquez proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to file without prepaying court fees. She sued Jeremiah Ryan under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. According to the complaint, Ryan fatally shot Henriquez’s 16-year-old daughter, Angellyh Yambo, on April 8, 2022, in Bronx County. The opinion states that Ryan was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
Henriquez sought to have the United States Department of Justice prosecute Ryan for violating her daughter’s civil rights and the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act.
Court’s analysis
The court screened the complaint under the federal statute governing cases filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Requests for prosecution
The court dismissed Henriquez’s claims seeking Ryan’s prosecution. It held that a private person cannot initiate an arrest or prosecution, and that prosecutors have discretion over whether to bring criminal charges. The court also stated that neither a citizen nor a court can control or interfere with prosecutors’ charging decisions.
Civil-rights claims
The court construed Henriquez’s civil-rights allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 generally permits claims based on conduct carried out under state authority, but private parties generally are not liable under that statute. Because Ryan was a private party and Henriquez did not allege that he worked for a state or other government body, the court concluded that she had not stated a Section 1983 claim against him.
The court stated that it was taking no position on the merits of any claims Henriquez might assert in state court.
Disposition
The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. It directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.