Mercado v. Orange County Courts

Background

Matthew Luis Mercado, who was incarcerated at the Orange County Jail, proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee. He brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used to sue for violations of constitutional rights by persons acting under state law. The court had previously ordered him to amend his complaint to address deficiencies. Mercado then filed two amended complaints, which the court reviewed.

The earlier complaints concerned his ongoing state criminal proceedings and named the “Orange County Courts,” the Orange County District Attorney and two assistant district attorneys, Judge Robert Freehill, and the Orange County Legal Aid Society. Another complaint concerned Mercado’s November 6, 2019 arrest and alleged that Detectives Kevin Moore and Frank Volpe unlawfully entered his apartment and falsely arrested him. The court noted that claims concerning that arrest were also pending in another matter and had previously dismissed claims against the New Windsor Police Department, Moore, and Volpe without prejudice to that pending matter.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirements. Those requirements direct a court to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise falls within the statutory grounds for dismissal. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but the complaint still must provide the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court repeated the reasons stated in its January 28, 2020 order. It held that the Orange County Courts were not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983; that the judge, district attorney, and assistant district attorneys were immune from suit; and that the Legal Aid Society was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983 liability. The court also held that it could not intervene in Mercado’s ongoing state-court criminal proceedings. The amended complaints were dismissed for those same reasons.

To the extent Mercado sought release from custody, the court construed his allegations as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal statute allowing certain challenges to unlawful custody. The court explained that a state pretrial detainee must first exhaust available state-court remedies, including seeking state habeas relief and, if necessary, appealing to the New York Court of Appeals. The court found no indication that Mercado had done so. It also noted that a § 2241 claim must allege a violation of federal law, rather than merely a violation of New York’s bail-reform law.

Disposition

The court dismissed Mercado’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). It dismissed the claims against the Town of New Windsor Police Department and Detectives Volpe and Moore without prejudice to the matter pending under docket number 19-CV-11843. It denied without prejudice any application for relief under § 2241 because Mercado had not shown exhaustion of available state remedies.

The court stated that Mercado had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.