Johnson El v. Deprospo

Background

The plaintiff, Jeremiah Siddique Johnson El ex rel Jerry Letite/Lateek Johnson, appeared without a lawyer. He styled his initial filing as a notice removing a civil case from the “Goshen Civil Court,” but the court treated it as a complaint starting a new federal civil action. He sued William L. DeProspo, the State of New York, the Town of Chester, Bruce Chambers, and Robert Bird. The opinion also says he sought damages and injunctive relief and asked the court to prosecute the defendants, declare a “summons/ticket – suit” unconstitutional, dismiss it, and remove it from the records.

The pleadings were difficult to understand. The court understood the plaintiff to allege that Chambers and Bird violated his constitutional rights when they detained him while he was traveling, that the defendants violated his Second Amendment rights by causing his pistol permit to be revoked, and that his right to procedural due process was violated. The materials attached to the complaint included a letter from Bird to Judge DeProspo and a May 16, 2019 order revoking the plaintiff’s pistol permit. The order stated that the plaintiff had previously received the permit and that it was revoked because of a previous felony conviction.

Screening standard

Because the plaintiff had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also explained that it had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, such filings still must provide enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Rulings on the federal claims

State of New York. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against New York State. The Eleventh Amendment generally protects states from lawsuits in federal court unless the state waives that protection or Congress removes it. The court found that Congress had not removed New York’s protection for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived it. The claims were dismissed as frivolous and because they sought relief from an immune defendant.

Judge DeProspo. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Judge DeProspo under judicial immunity. Judges are generally immune from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court held that revoking the plaintiff’s pistol permit was within Judge DeProspo’s judicial duties under New York law. The court also concluded that the statutory limits on injunctive relief against judicial officers applied. These claims were dismissed as frivolous and because they sought relief from an immune defendant.

Requests for criminal prosecution. The court dismissed any claims seeking criminal prosecution of the defendants or other people for failure to state a claim. It explained that a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case or require federal prosecutors to bring one.

Procedural due process. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s possible due-process claims concerning revocation of his pistol permit for failure to state a claim. It explained that courts in the circuit had held that a New York pistol permit is a privilege subject to the licensing officer’s discretion, rather than a property right. The court added that, even if the plaintiff had a property interest, New York provides a procedure under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules to challenge the revocation. The plaintiff alleged no facts showing that this state procedure was inadequate and alleged nothing showing that he had pursued it.

Chambers and Bird. The court dismissed the remaining § 1983 claims against Chambers and Bird without prejudice because they appeared duplicative of claims against those defendants in another pending action, Johnson El v. Bird, No. 7:19-CV-5102 (CS), before Judge Cathy Seibel. “Without prejudice” means those claims were not barred from being brought again on that basis.

Town of Chester. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the Town of Chester for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff had not alleged facts showing that a Town policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his federal rights.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court also declined to give the plaintiff permission to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the § 1983 claims against New York State and Judge DeProspo as frivolous and because those defendants were immune from the requested monetary relief. It dismissed the remaining § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim, except that it dismissed the claims against Chambers and Bird without prejudice as duplicative. It declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.