Harris v. Sowell
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01306
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
Harris v. Sowell: Judge McMahon dismissed Harris’s civil-rights case for inadequate allegations and prosecutorial immunity, but allowed amendment within thirty days.
Laquan Devota Harris’s § 1983 claims against the named defendants were dismissed at the screening stage; Harris was allowed thirty days to file an amended complaint, while the claims seeking damages from prosecutors were dismissed on immunity grounds.
What happened
In Harris v. Sowell, Laquan Devota Harris, representing himself, claimed that prosecutors and others conspired to violate his constitutional rights during events surrounding his November 7, 2018 arrest in Manhattan. He alleged false arrest, lies about firearms, theft of legal documents, excessive bail, and other wrongdoing, and sought millions of dollars and return of his documents.
The court found that claims seeking damages from District Attorney Cyrus Vance and assistant district attorneys were barred by their immunity for actions connected to the criminal process. It also found that Harris did not provide enough facts to support a false-arrest claim or explain how each defendant personally participated in the alleged violation.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds, granted Harris thirty days to file an amended complaint, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Sowell · No. 1:20-cv-01306
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
Laquan Devota Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against people who, while acting under state law, violate constitutional rights. He alleged that the defendants conspired against him. The case had been filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had allowed Harris to proceed without paying filing fees.
The defendants named in the caption were Gilford Gittens, James Sowell, Cyrus Robert Vance Jr., Nitin Savur, Chauncey Parker, Michael Sachs, John Irwin, and Carey Dunne. The opinion described Vance as the New York County District Attorney and the other individuals as appearing to be assistant district attorneys in Vance’s office.
Harris alleged that the events occurred in Manhattan on November 7, 2018. He claimed that Gittens followed him from a Civilian Complaint Review Board office; that the defendants worked with transit police officers to falsely arrest him; that defendants lied and committed perjury by saying he possessed firearms and handguns; that they took his classified state legal documents; and that they imposed excessive bail. He also alleged identity theft, fraud, money laundering, and a broader plot involving district attorney offices. He sought millions of dollars in damages and the return of his legal documents.
Legal standards
Because Harris was proceeding without paying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint, or any part of it, if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or otherwise fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read generously, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible and must identify facts showing entitlement to relief.
Claims against prosecutors
Prosecutors generally have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court concluded that Harris’s claims against Vance and the assistant district attorneys appeared to concern actions within their official duties and connected with a trial. It therefore dismissed those claims because they sought money from immune defendants and were considered frivolous under the federal screening statute.
False-arrest claim
For a false-arrest claim under § 1983, state-law principles help identify the relevant elements. The plaintiff must generally show that the defendant intended to confine him, that he knew about the confinement, that he did not consent, and that the confinement was not legally justified. Probable cause—facts known to the arresting officer that reasonably supported believing a crime had been committed—makes an arrest privileged and defeats a false-arrest claim. Probable cause may exist even when officers rely on mistaken information, if their reliance was reasonable and in good faith.
The court found that Harris did not describe the circumstances leading to his arrest, the charges brought against him, or the status of the criminal proceedings. His statement that defendants falsely arrested him was not enough. The court stated that, if Harris amended his complaint, he would need to provide facts suggesting that the defendants lacked probable cause.
Personal involvement
A § 1983 claim also requires facts showing each defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable merely because he or she supervises someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights. The court instructed Harris that an amended complaint must explain how each individual defendant was personally involved in falsely arresting him.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds. It granted Harris thirty days to file an amended complaint. The court directed the Clerk to mail him a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harris permission to appeal without paying fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.