Laureano v. United States of America

Background

Jean Carlos Laureano challenged U.S. Probation Officer Terry Brooks’s decision to seek Laureano’s arrest for allegedly violating the conditions of his supervised release. Chief Judge McMahon had previously given Laureano 30 days to amend his complaint to assert a malicious-prosecution claim against Brooks.

Laureano filed an amended complaint. He alleged that Brooks sought an arrest warrant on or about May 15, 2018; that the warrant interfered with his ability to get a job and attend programs; that he was later taken to a federal facility; and that Brooks sent him to an inpatient program before a court appearance. Laureano also alleged that, at an April 9, 2019 hearing, he was found innocent of violations that he said he had not committed.

The court reviewed records from that hearing. Those records showed that Judge Kaplan dismissed three specifications because the alleged facts did not support a finding that Laureano violated his supervision terms, while the other four specifications were dismissed based on a joint application by the parties. The records did not identify which specifications fell into each category.

Legal standard

Because Laureano was a prisoner seeking relief against government-related defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, but those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court treated the proposed claim as a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim against a federal officer. Because Brooks was a federal employee, the claim was treated as arising under Bivens, a doctrine allowing certain damages claims against federal employees for constitutional violations.

Court’s analysis

A Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim requires allegations that the defendant initiated or continued a criminal proceeding, the proceeding ended favorably for the plaintiff, the defendant lacked probable cause to begin it, and the defendant acted with actual malice. The plaintiff must also show a related deprivation of liberty and that the proceeding ended in a way that affirmatively indicated the plaintiff’s innocence.

The court held that Laureano had not alleged enough facts to show that Brooks lacked probable cause or that the proceeding ended in a manner indicating Laureano’s innocence. Laureano stated that he was innocent, but he did not provide supporting facts. He also did not explain the nature of the specifications, why some were dismissed by agreement, or why others were dismissed for lack of factual support. Because of these omissions, the court could not evaluate whether Brooks had probable cause or whether the proceeding ended in a way that indicated Laureano’s innocence.

Disposition

The court granted Laureano 30 days to file a second amended complaint asserting a malicious-prosecution claim against Brooks. The order required him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-10986(LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Laureano failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.