Pizarro v. United States of America

Background

Robert Pizarro, who was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and represented himself, brought claims under Bivens—a court-recognized damages remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officers—and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Drug Enforcement Administration agents arrested him in Elizabeth, New Jersey, searched his vehicle without a warrant, and detained and prosecuted him. He also alleged that federal prosecutors violated the rule requiring disclosure of favorable evidence, that New York City police defendants conducted a flawed investigation and permitted misconduct, that his court-appointed defense lawyers harmed him through their representation, and that a cooperating witness gave improper testimony.

The criminal case involved charges of conspiracy to commit kidnapping resulting in death, Hobbs Act robbery, and a firearm offense. A jury convicted Pizarro on all counts, and the court entered judgment on August 1, 2019. He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 14 years, which the opinion describes as mandatory. His appeal was pending when this order was issued. Pizarro sought money damages and invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court applied the prisoner-screening statutes, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek damages from immune defendants, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Federal-government immunity. The court held that sovereign immunity generally barred Pizarro’s claims against the United States because he did not identify a waiver of that immunity. It dismissed all claims against the United States.

Prosecutorial and witness immunity. The court held that claims against Assistant United States Attorneys Margaret Graham, Jessica Fender, Jared Lenow, and Jason Swergold, and paralegal Hanna Harney, were based on conduct within their official duties and connected to the judicial phase of the criminal case. It therefore dismissed those damages claims because the defendants were immune. The court also dismissed claims against Phillip Haynes arising from his testimony because grand-jury and trial witnesses have absolute immunity from damages claims based on their testimony, even when the testimony is alleged to be false.

Claims against defense lawyers. The court ruled that Elizabeth Macedonia, Louis Freeman, and Carla Sanderson were private parties. Their court appointments did not make them state actors for purposes of § 1983. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claims against them for failure to state a claim.

Claims about the federal arrest and search. Pizarro asserted constitutional claims against the DEA agents for false arrest and unreasonable search. The court applied Heck v. Humphrey, which generally bars a damages claim when winning it would necessarily undermine an existing criminal conviction unless that conviction has been invalidated. The court said Pizarro did not allege facts showing that the arrest or search violated the Fourth Amendment. It also said that, even if he could establish a violation, his claims were barred if the seized evidence was used at trial and could not have been found through another lawful source. And even if the claims were not barred on that basis, Pizarro had not alleged an injury separate from his prosecution and incarceration. The court dismissed the claims against Joseph Mercurio, Gerald Ricciardi, Hector Pagan, Mike McGurk, Christian McNeal, Nicholas DeAmorin, Chris Owen, Billy Ralat, and Raphael Torres for failure to state a claim.

Claims against the New York City police defendants. The court held that these claims were also barred by Heck. It reasoned that finding that the police defendants knew of and allowed Officer Merlin Alston to direct Bishun’s murder, with another person carrying it out, would necessarily imply that Pizarro was innocent. The court dismissed all claims against the New York City police defendants.

State-law claims and leave to replead. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretion to hear related state-law claims—because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction. Because it was not clear that amendment would be futile, the court granted Pizarro 30 days to replead his Fourth Amendment claims.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon directed that the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.