Feliz v. Park

Background

Alexander Feliz, who was detained at Rikers Island, brought this action without a lawyer under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He sued Jung Park, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted him; Judges Abraham Clott and Charles Solomon, who presided over his criminal proceedings; Tony Durante, identified as the warden at the Manhattan Detention Center; and the People of the State of New York. Feliz sought “trillions” of dollars in damages.

Feliz challenged his recent conviction in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. The complaint alleged that Park improperly charged him with second-degree murder, failed to comply with New York’s speedy-trial statute, failed to recognize alleged perjury, and used property as evidence after it was illegally seized. Feliz also alleged that Park and Durante failed to ensure his presence during grand-jury proceedings, that the proceeding continued without a stenographer, and that officers questioned him without first advising him of his Miranda rights. He further challenged actions by Judges Clott and Solomon during his criminal case. Documents attached to the complaint indicated that a jury found Feliz guilty of intentional and felony murder on November 20, 2019, with sentencing scheduled for January 16, 2020.

Screening standard

Because Feliz had permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought damages from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they reasonably suggested.

Claims against Park

The court held that Park had absolute prosecutorial immunity from Feliz’s damages claims. This protection covers actions within a prosecutor’s official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case, including conduct directly connected with a trial. The court found that Feliz’s claims against Park concerned actions within the scope of Park’s official duties and associated with the conduct of a trial. It therefore dismissed those claims as seeking monetary relief from an immune defendant and as frivolous under the screening statute.

Claims against Judges Clott and Solomon

The court held that Judges Clott and Solomon had absolute judicial immunity from damages claims based on actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Feliz’s allegations concerned conduct within the judges’ judicial roles. It therefore dismissed those claims as frivolous. The opinion explained that allegations of bad faith or malice do not overcome judicial immunity, and it did not find that the judges acted outside their judicial capacities or without jurisdiction.

Claims against New York State

The court dismissed Feliz’s claims against the People of the State of New York under the Eleventh Amendment. That constitutional provision generally bars suits against a state in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has removed it. The court found that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute invoked in the opinion.

Claims against Warden Durante

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires facts showing a defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because that person supervises or employs someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court found that Feliz did not allege facts showing Durante’s personal involvement in the events underlying the complaint. Although Feliz appeared to believe that Durante participated in decisions about his appearance at grand-jury proceedings, the court found that the allegations did not even suggest that Durante was involved in Feliz’s criminal proceedings. It dismissed the claims against Durante for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). It declined to give Feliz permission to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court denied Feliz’s request for appointment of pro bono counsel as moot. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.