Cox v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Cox v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Judge McMahon dismissed Michele Cox’s civil-rights case for failure to state a claim.
Michele Cox’s claims against Westchester County, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, and other people or officials she sought to hold responsible were dismissed. The court declined to allow amendment and denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Cox v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Michele Cox, representing herself, alleged that officials and others violated her due-process rights after her husband obtained a divorce judgment without notifying her and filed a document falsely claiming she had been served. The state court later vacated the divorce judgment, but Cox said officials did not prosecute the people involved or void her husband’s later marriage.
The court dismissed Cox’s claims against Westchester County because she did not allege that a county policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. It dismissed the claims against Sing Sing Correctional Facility because a prison facility is not a person that can be sued under the civil-rights statute. The court also dismissed claims seeking criminal prosecution or alleging that officials had a constitutional duty to enforce the law or protect her from private conduct.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and declined to allow Cox to amend because the defects could not be corrected by amendment. The court also determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cox permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility · No. 1:19-cv-09249
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
Michele Cox, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint styled as a letter to the Westchester County Human Rights Commission. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows claims for constitutional violations by persons acting under state law. Cox alleged that her husband, Lavon Cox, obtained a New York divorce judgment without her knowledge, married Tanesha Jones, and filed a document falsely stating that Emma Brevetti had served Cox with divorce papers in Niagara Falls, New York. Cox alleged that she had not lived in New York since 2014 and was not in Niagara Falls on the stated date.
Cox reported the alleged false document to state-court officials, Sing Sing officials, and the Westchester County Clerk’s Office. She moved in state court to vacate the divorce judgment and filed a criminal complaint with the police. The state court vacated the divorce judgment, but Cox alleged that Lavon Cox was still receiving conjugal visits, that the state court had not voided his marriage to Jones, and that officials had not prosecuted Lavon Cox, Jones, or Brevetti.
Screening standard
Because Cox was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings still must provide enough factual matter to make a claim legally plausible.
Claims against Westchester County
The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Westchester County for failure to state a claim. A municipality is not liable merely because one of its employees or agents allegedly did something wrong. The plaintiff must allege facts showing that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Cox alleged no facts showing that a Westchester County policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of her federal constitutional rights.
Claims against Sing Sing Correctional Facility
The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Sing Sing Correctional Facility for failure to state a claim. A § 1983 plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and conduct by a person acting under state law. The court held that a prison facility is not a person subject to suit under § 1983.
Requests for criminal prosecution
The court dismissed any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of the defendants or other people. A private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal case in federal court, and a private citizen has no legally recognized interest in whether another person is prosecuted. The court also noted that federal prosecutors have discretion over whether to bring criminal actions.
Alleged failure to enforce the law or protect Cox
The court dismissed Cox’s § 1983 claims based on officials’ alleged failure to enforce the law or protect her from private conduct. It held that the Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, does not require government officials to enforce laws or protect individuals from the wrongful acts of private people. The court understood Cox to be challenging officials’ failure to prevent Lavon Cox from seeking a divorce without notifying her and their failure to prosecute Lavon Cox, Jones, and Brevetti. The court concluded that officials had no constitutional duty to take those actions. A footnote also stated that Cox conceded the state court remedied the injury from the divorce without notice and an opportunity to be heard by vacating the divorce judgment.
Disposition
The court declined to grant Cox leave to amend because it found that the defects in her complaint could not be cured by amendment. Judge Colleen McMahon ordered that the action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.