Delgado v. Kevin F. Russo

Background

Joleen Delgado proceeded without a lawyer and sought to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She alleged that Defendants violated her federal constitutional rights and engaged in criminal conduct. The opinion identifies Kevin F. Russo and Ronald V. DeCAPRIO as Rockland County judges, and Jake Sisco and Ronald Ward as Rockland County Sheriff’s Department employees. The State of New York was also named as a defendant.

Delgado alleged that events began after she filed a police report concerning a coworker and her business. She alleged that she was later stopped and falsely accused of driving while intoxicated. She further alleged that Sisco and Ward arrested her on a warrant signed by Judge Russo, did not show her the warrant, did not allow her to close her business, posted her mugshot, sent her to medical and mental-health personnel, and kept her in a cell for more than 24 hours. She also alleged that Defendants retaliated against her for filing earlier lawsuits and that they violated federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 2340. The court construed her other claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that permits certain claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law.

Reasons for Dismissal

Because Delgado was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court dismissed Delgado’s Section 1983 claims against the State of New York and Rockland County Court under the Eleventh Amendment, which generally protects states and state instrumentalities from suits for money damages in federal court. The court held that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it for Section 1983 claims.

The court also dismissed the claims against Judges Russo and DeCAPRIO based on absolute judicial immunity. It found that Delgado had not alleged facts showing that either judge acted outside the judge’s jurisdiction or outside judicial responsibilities. The court explained that judicial immunity protected the judges from damages claims, including claims alleging bad faith or malicious conduct. It also concluded that Delgado had not met the requirements for prospective injunctive relief against the judges.

The court dismissed any claims seeking federal criminal prosecution of the Defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that private individuals cannot require federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against other people.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Delgado may have intended to assert.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing fee-free cases and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It granted Delgado 30 days to replead her claims in an amended complaint. The court did not add a prejudice designation to the dismissal. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the Clerk of Court to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.