Nieves v. Farber

Background

Michael Nieves, who was hospitalized at the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center, brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sought damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and release from custody. He named New York Supreme Court Justice Curtis J. Farber; New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.; Assistant District Attorney Brandon Riddle; New York City Fire Marshal Phillip Meagher; New York City Police Officers James Marcinek and Rufian Arshad. Nieves also filed applications for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and appointment of counsel.

The court had previously granted Nieves permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. It screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review certain prisoner complaints and dismiss claims that are legally barred, frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

Claims Against Justice Farber

The court dismissed Nieves’s claims against Justice Farber based on judicial immunity. That doctrine generally gives judges absolute immunity from damages claims for acts within their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Nieves’s claims arose from Justice Farber’s decisions in Nieves’s pending criminal proceeding, which were within the judge’s duties. The court also explained that § 1983 generally restricts injunctive relief against a judicial officer unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. It concluded that declaratory relief was available through an appeal in the state courts.

Claims Against Vance and Riddle

The court dismissed Nieves’s § 1983 claims for damages against District Attorney Vance and Assistant District Attorney Riddle based on prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages claims for prosecutorial acts within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court found that the challenged conduct arose from their prosecution of Nieves.

Claims Seeking Injunctions, Declarations, and Release

Nieves also challenged his pending criminal prosecution and sought release from custody through his requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court ruled that a § 1983 action was not the proper vehicle for those requests. It treated them, including the requests in his temporary restraining order application, as claims for a federal custody challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The court dismissed those claims because Nieves had not alleged facts showing that he had exhausted available state-court remedies. It stated that a state pretrial detainee generally must first seek relief in state court and, if necessary, appeal through the New York Court of Appeals. The court dismissed the claims and denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice to Nieves’s filing a § 2241 petition after exhausting those remedies.

Appointment of Counsel

The court denied Nieves’s application for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It said that the case was at too early a stage for the court to assess its merits. The court stated that, under the applicable statute, it could request that a lawyer volunteer rather than require the lawyer to represent Nieves. The denial was without prejudice to a later application for the court to request volunteer counsel.

Service on Remaining Defendants

The court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Meagher, Marcinek, and Arshad, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. Because Nieves was proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the Marshals Service would carry out service. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued.

Disposition

The court dismissed Nieves’s claims against Farber, Vance, and Riddle. It also dismissed the remaining claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and denied the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice to a later § 2241 petition after state-court exhaustion. It denied the application for appointment of counsel without prejudice. It directed service on Meagher, Marcinek, and Arshad, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so permission to proceed without prepaying fees was denied for an appeal.