Moore v. The State of New York

Background

Robert Moore, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued the State of New York, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and New York County Assistant District Attorney Corey Briskin. Moore alleged that he was arrested in August 2018, later underwent psychiatric examinations and forced medication while the state court considered whether he was fit to stand trial, and was convicted in New York Supreme Court, New York County, on December 17, 2019, of persistent sexual abuse under Section 130.53 of the New York Penal Law.

Moore challenged his conviction, asked the federal court to stop the state court from sentencing him, and sought damages based on the defendants’ prosecution of him. The court construed the complaint and its supplement as raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and claims for federal custody relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Section 1983 claims

The court dismissed Moore’s § 1983 claims against New York State under the Eleventh Amendment. It concluded that Congress had not removed the State’s immunity for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived its immunity to suit in federal court. The court stated that this immunity covered Moore’s claims for damages, injunctive relief, and retrospective declaratory relief.

The court also dismissed Moore’s § 1983 claims for damages against Vance and Briskin in their official capacities under the same immunity doctrine. It dismissed the damages claims against them in their individual capacities under prosecutorial immunity because the claims arose from their prosecution of Moore. Prosecutorial immunity protects prosecutors from damages suits for actions within their prosecutorial duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case.

Federal custody-relief claims

The court explained that a person in state custody who is held under a state-court judgment generally challenges that custody through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before a state prisoner seeks relief under § 2241, however, the prisoner must exhaust available state-court remedies, including appeals through the New York Court of Appeals when state habeas petitions have been unsuccessful.

Because Moore had been convicted but had not yet been sentenced when he filed the federal action, the court treated his conviction challenge and request to stop sentencing as § 2241 claims. Moore alleged that he had filed several state habeas petitions, but he did not allege facts showing that he had appealed the unsuccessful results to the New York Court of Appeals. The court therefore dismissed the § 2241 claims without prejudice for failure to show exhaustion. The court noted that, if Moore had later been sentenced, a federal challenge to his conviction or sentence would need to proceed under § 2254 after exhaustion of available state remedies.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the § 1983 claims as frivolous and because they sought monetary relief from defendants immune from that relief. It dismissed the § 2241 habeas claims without prejudice. The court declined to allow Moore to amend because it found that amendment would be futile. It also determined that the complaint did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. Finally, it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.