Valles v. Attorney General of the United States
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-02215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Andrew Valles v. Attorney General, Judge Subramanian denied Valles’s damages motion as premature because defendants’ motion to dismiss remained pending.
Andrew Valles’s motion for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages was denied as premature. The ruling did not resolve his underlying claims or determine whether he was entitled to damages.
What happened
Andrew Valles asked the court to award compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, malicious prosecution, wrongful conviction, incarceration, and related constitutional injuries. He sought $5,703,000 in compensatory damages, $100 in nominal damages, and $51,327,000 in punitive damages.
The court did not decide whether Valles was entitled to damages or whether his underlying allegations were valid. Instead, the court denied the damages motion as premature because the defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending.
In Andrew Valles v. Attorney General of the United States, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the motion terminated and stated that Valles could refile it if he prevailed. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice; it said only that it was denied as premature and could be refiled if he prevailed.
The detailed version
- Valles v. Attorney General of the United States · No. 1:25-cv-02215
- Subramanian
- Oct. 17, 2025
Motion and allegations
Andrew Valles, representing himself, filed a motion seeking damages as a supplement to his complaint. He invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Valles alleged that defendants engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecution that led to a wrongful conviction and violations of his constitutional rights.
According to his motion, Valles alleged that he was prosecuted for failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), convicted, incarcerated for nine months, placed on five years of federal supervised release, and compelled to register as a sex offender. He also alleged physical, mental, and reputational injuries. These allegations were presented by Valles; the order did not decide their truth.
Valles requested $5,703,000 in compensatory damages, $100 in nominal damages, and $51,327,000 in punitive damages. Compensatory damages are intended to compensate for claimed losses, nominal damages recognize a legal violation with a symbolic award, and punitive damages are sought to punish especially wrongful conduct and deter similar conduct.
Court’s ruling
The court denied Valles’s motion as premature given the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The ruling did not decide whether Valles had proved a constitutional violation, whether defendants were liable, or whether he was entitled to any requested damages. The court stated that the motion could be refiled if Valles prevailed.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 34. The order was signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on October 17, 2025.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.