Guevara v. Margoles

Background

Peter Michael Guevara, who was under indictment in a separate federal criminal case, sued numerous people connected with that prosecution. The defendants included current and former defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, prison and jail officials, parole and task-force personnel, and other government employees. Guevara sought criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, money damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, and an injunction affecting his criminal case.

Screening and analysis

Because Guevara was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental employees, the court screened the complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court concluded that the complaint was frivolous on its face and subject to summary dismissal.

The court held that Guevara lacked standing to initiate criminal prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. It also held that he could not bring a damages claim under Bivens against most defendants because they were not federal actors. As to defendants who were federal actors, the court stated that recognizing a Bivens remedy for these allegations would be a novel and unwarranted extension of that decision.

The court further explained that a civil action was not an appropriate way to challenge alleged errors in an ongoing criminal proceeding. It said Guevara’s complaints about his attorneys, the prosecutors, and the magistrate judges had to be raised in the criminal case or, after that case ended, in an appeal. The court also rejected the premise that a criminal defendant has a right to control the arguments made by appointed counsel while remaining represented by counsel.

The court noted that Guevara had combined unrelated grievances and defendants in one lawsuit. It stated that unrelated claims against different defendants should be brought in separate cases and warned that future pleadings of this kind could be divided into multiple actions, each carrying filing fees and potentially separate strikes. The court’s footnote stated that claims about the alleged unlawful seizure of property while Guevara was in prison were misjoined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) and that those defendants would also be dismissed under Rule 21 if the case proceeded.

Disposition

The court ordered that the matter be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). It denied Guevara’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and ordered him to pay the unpaid $350 statutory filing fee through installment payments from his facility trust account. The court directed the clerk to notify the officials at the institution where Guevara was confined.

Because the action was frivolous, the dismissal counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court also ruled that an appeal could not be taken in good faith and denied Guevara permission to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).