Teresa Murphy aka Teresa Leo v. Rockland County

Background

Teresa Murphy, also known as Teresa Leo, filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, along with claims under federal criminal statutes and possibly state law. She alleged that unidentified officers arrested her on September 10, 2022, leading to a guilty plea and conviction on July 8, 2023. She also alleged that officers arrested her at her Warwick home on January 13, 2025, without a warrant or probable cause; that she was taken to a hospital and forcibly medicated; that officials surveilled or attempted to enter her home; and that her children were removed from her custody.

Murphy sought damages and extensive injunctive and declaratory relief, including dismissal of state criminal charges, an end to state prosecution, expungement of arrest records, release of Charles Bernard Starke, restoration of custody and family relationships, and federal investigations or criminal prosecutions. The court treated her additional filings as supplements to her amended complaint. Because she was proceeding without a lawyer, the court screened the pleading under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees.

Claims the Court Dismissed

The court dismissed, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Murphy’s requests that federal prosecutors criminally prosecute the defendants or others. The court held that private individuals cannot initiate federal criminal prosecutions and that prosecutors’ charging decisions are not controlled by a private plaintiff or the court.

The court dismissed without prejudice her non-habeas claims brought on behalf of Charles Bernard Starke and Carrie Ware Samson because a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent another person in a non-habeas civil case. It also dismissed without prejudice any request for release from custody that Murphy made on Starke’s behalf because she had not shown that he could not seek relief himself or that she was entitled to act as his representative.

The court dismissed claims seeking to stop or disrupt pending state criminal proceedings under the rule requiring federal courts to avoid interfering with certain ongoing state cases. It found that Murphy had not alleged the special circumstances needed to overcome that rule. The court also dismissed claims seeking to overturn her prior state conviction because federal district courts generally cannot review or reverse final state-court judgments. As to possible federal habeas relief concerning that conviction, the court said it was unclear whether Murphy was still in custody and alternatively noted that she had not alleged exhaustion of available state remedies; it declined to consider those possible claims without prejudice.

The court dismissed claims against Judge Brown based on judicial immunity for actions taken while presiding over Murphy’s state criminal cases. It applied similar protection to claims against Probation Officer Skyler Kemp concerning preparation and submission of a presentence report. The court did not grant leave to replead claims against either defendant that were barred by this immunity.

The court dismissed federal claims seeking restoration of custody of Murphy’s children under the domestic-relations abstention doctrine because she had not shown that the custody issues could not be fully and fairly decided in state court.

Child-Custody Constitutional Claims

The court concluded that Murphy had not provided enough facts to state a procedural due-process claim concerning the removal of her children. She did not specify when the children were removed, whether a hearing occurred, the reasons for the removal, what happened at any hearing, whether she sought further review, or why the process provided was inadequate. The court dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim but granted leave to replead them against an individual state or local official.

The court also dismissed Murphy’s substantive due-process claims concerning family integrity. It found that she had not alleged facts showing that the officials’ conduct was exceptionally shocking or that they acted specifically to interfere with her family relationship. The court granted leave to replead these claims against individual state or local officials.

Municipal and Individual Defendants

The court dismissed claims against the Warwick Police Department and Orange County Probation because, as pleaded, those municipal departments were not entities that could be sued separately from their municipalities. It also dismissed claims against Rockland County, Orange County, and the Town of Warwick because Murphy did not allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The court granted leave to replead claims against those counties or the town, but not against the municipal departments, if Murphy could allege the required facts.

The court dismissed Murphy’s Section 1983 claims against individual defendants, including Officer Mazella, Kemp, Tammie Johnson, Carol C. Pierce, Andrew R. Kass, and Ospra, because she did not identify what each person personally and directly did. The court granted leave to replead claims against individuals, except claims against Brown and Kemp already barred by immunity, if she could provide facts showing each person’s direct involvement.

The court also dismissed Murphy’s conspiracy claims under Sections 1983 and 1985 because her allegations were vague, conclusory, and lacked supporting details. It granted leave to replead those claims with sufficient factual detail.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Murphy 60 days to file a second amended complaint containing only claims for which the order granted leave to replead. The new complaint must identify each defendant, describe what each defendant did, provide relevant dates and locations, explain her injuries, and state the relief requested. It will replace the prior pleadings rather than supplement them. The court stated that no summonses would issue at that time and warned that failure to comply could result in a judgment dismissing the action.

The court denied Murphy’s other motions or requests for relief, apart from requests included in the amended complaint, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions. The order is a screening and pleading order; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the surviving potential claims. The opinion is signed by Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge.