Washington v. Schneiderman

Background

Landon Lamont Washington, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued former New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the State of New York, former New York State Board of Parole Chairwoman Andrea Evans, and the New York State Board of Parole. He sued the individual defendants in their individual capacities and sought unspecified damages and unspecified injunctive relief.

Washington alleged that he received an indeterminate state sentence of two to six years in 2005. He asserted that New York changed the relevant sentencing law in 2009 but did not apply or implement that change for him. He alleged that he remained imprisoned until he completed the maximum term in 2011.

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute, and claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to challenge a state conviction or sentence in federal court. The court had previously allowed Washington to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, but it screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Section 1983 Claims Against New York State and the Board of Parole

The court held that the § 1983 claims against New York State and the Board of Parole were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. That doctrine generally prevents states and state entities that function as arms of the state from being sued in federal court for damages, injunctive relief, or retrospective declaratory relief, unless immunity has been waived or removed by Congress.

The court stated that Congress had not removed New York’s immunity for § 1983 claims and that New York had not waived its immunity to suit in federal court. It also held that the Board of Parole was an arm of New York State. The court therefore dismissed Washington’s § 1983 claims against New York State and the Board of Parole under the screening statutes because the claims sought relief from defendants immune from that relief.

Section 1983 Claims Against Schneiderman and Evans

The court also dismissed Washington’s § 1983 claims against Schneiderman and Evans for failure to state a claim. For an individual-capacity § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendant’s direct and personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. A person cannot be held liable solely because that person supervised or employed someone who allegedly violated the plaintiff’s rights.

The court found that Washington alleged no facts suggesting that Schneiderman or Evans was personally involved in a violation of his federal constitutional rights. It therefore dismissed those claims under the provision requiring dismissal of claims that fail to state a claim for relief.

Section 2254 Claims

The court treated Washington’s requests for injunctive relief as a petition under § 2254 challenging his state sentence. Section 2254 requires the petitioner to be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed.

Washington alleged that he completed the sentence in 2011. He signed the complaint on or about February 11, 2020, years after that sentence had expired. The court therefore held that Washington was no longer in custody under the sentence he sought to challenge and dismissed the § 2254 claims because the court lacked jurisdiction to consider them.

The court also stated that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was not a decision on the merits and therefore did not trigger restrictions governing second or successive § 2254 petitions. The court did not need to provide notice and an opportunity to withdraw before treating the claims as a § 2254 petition.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court concluded that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore declined to grant Washington leave to amend.

The order dismissed the action. It dismissed the § 1983 claims because Washington sought relief from immune defendants and failed to state a claim, and dismissed the § 2254 claims because the court lacked jurisdiction. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the complaint made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.