Livingston v. Doe

Background

Clarence Livingston, who was incarcerated at Groveland Correctional Facility, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that he was arrested without probable cause, held in pretrial detention for 23 months, and released from the charges after they were dismissed. The court had already allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.

Screening standard

Because Livingston was incarcerated and proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also said it would read a self-represented person’s complaint liberally, while still requiring enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Dismissed defendants

The court dismissed Livingston’s claims against the New York County District Attorney’s Office. It held that the claims were based on actions within the District Attorney’s official duties and connected with the conduct of a criminal trial, making the defendant immune from a damages suit. The court also described those claims as frivolous under the cited screening provisions.

The court dismissed the claims against the “Manhattan Criminal Supreme Court.” It reasoned that a court is not a person who can be sued under Section 1983 and that New York state courts are protected from suit by constitutional immunity. The court stated that this defendant was therefore not proper and that the claims failed to state a claim and were barred by immunity.

Service and identification of defendants

The court allowed the case to proceed far enough for service-related steps concerning the City of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service paperwork and deliver it to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because Livingston was proceeding without paying the filing fee upfront, the court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons was issued.

The complaint identified a John Doe detective who allegedly arrested Livingston on May 18, 2016, at the subway station at Eighth Avenue and 14th Street in Manhattan. Relying on the rule that a self-represented litigant may receive court assistance in identifying a defendant, the court ordered the New York City Law Department to determine the detective’s identity and service address within 60 days. Livingston was ordered to file an amended complaint naming the detective within 30 days after receiving that information. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, and the court would screen it after filing.

Other directions and disposition

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order and an information package to Livingston and to send the order and complaint to the New York City Law Department. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

The court dismissed the claims against the New York County District Attorney’s Office and the “Manhattan Criminal Supreme Court.” It did not decide the merits of Livingston’s allegations about the arrest or pretrial detention in this order.