Panetta v. Cassel
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In Panetta v. Cassel, Judge Halpern dismissed some claims, ordered service on others, and required Sylvia Panetta to explain why the rest should not be dismissed as untimely.
The order affected Sylvia Panetta, the judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and Orange County Office of the Aging whose claims were dismissed, and the Town of Wallkill, County of Orange, David Ayers, and listed police-department defendants who were ordered to receive service and respond to specified claims. Panetta’s remaining claims were subject to her filing a declaration addressing possible time bars.
What happened
In Panetta v. Cassel, Sylvia Panetta, who represented herself, sued about 65 defendants under several federal statutes, including the civil-rights laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as New York law. She also sought criminal prosecutions and requested that the court seek a volunteer lawyer for her. The court had already allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court dismissed claims seeking criminal prosecutions, claims against the Orange County Office of the Aging, certain civil-rights claims against named judges and prosecutors based on immunity, and civil-rights claims based on defendants’ testimony based on witness immunity. It ordered service on the Town of Wallkill, the County of Orange, David Ayers, and the listed police-department defendants for specified malicious-prosecution, fabricated-evidence, conspiracy, abuse-of-process, and related state-law claims.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed Panetta to explain within 30 days why her remaining claims should not be dismissed as untimely, because many appeared to arise from events between 2012 and 2015. The judge denied her request for the court to seek volunteer counsel without prejudice, meaning she could file another request later, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Panetta v. Cassel · No. 7:20-cv-02255
- Philip Halpern
- May 7, 2020
Background
Sylvia Panetta filed a 209-page complaint and appeared without a lawyer. She sued approximately 65 defendants, including the Town of Wallkill, the County of Orange, current and former members of the Town of Wallkill Police Department, prosecutors, judges, Orange County jail personnel, other local government officials, a local government office, and private individuals and organizations. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986; civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; state-law claims; and claims under criminal statutes. She sought damages, costs, and attorney fees.
The court had previously allowed Panetta to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The complaint also included an application asking the court to seek volunteer legal counsel for her.
Claims Dismissed at Screening
Because Panetta was proceeding without paying filing fees in advance, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected by immunity. The court also considered its duty to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and its authority to dismiss apparently untimely claims after giving a self-represented litigant notice and an opportunity to respond.
The court dismissed Panetta’s claims seeking the criminal prosecution of defendants or others because a private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal case in federal court.
The court dismissed her claims against the Orange County Office of the Aging because, under New York law as described in the opinion, municipal agencies or departments do not have a separate legal identity that allows them to be sued.
The court dismissed Panetta’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages against Judges Patrick S. Owen, Joseph A. Owen, and Steven Brockett. It held that claims arising from their actions and decisions in Panetta’s proceedings were covered by judicial immunity. The court also dismissed claims against them in their official capacities under Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The court dismissed Panetta’s § 1983 damages claims against Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler and Orange County Assistant District Attorneys Andrew Kass and Michael Purcell when those claims arose from their prosecutorial actions. The court held that those actions were protected by prosecutorial immunity and dismissed official-capacity claims under Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The court also dismissed § 1983 damages claims based on defendants’ testimony in state-court proceedings. Witnesses are protected by immunity from damages claims under § 1983 for their testimony, even when the testimony is alleged to have been false.
Claims Allowed to Proceed to Service
The court directed service on Robert Hertman, M. Donaldson, Antonio Spano, Daniel Covey, Jason Farningham, Anthony Grosso, Kelly Ann Boss, Kate Monahan, Barry Weissman, Julia Ashworth, A. Solano, Christopher DiNapoli, John Snellinger, Jessica Kenney, Joseph Steuber, Jessica Steuber, the Town of Wallkill, David Ayers, and the County of Orange. The opinion refers to the listed individual defendants as the WPD Defendants.
Those defendants were required to respond to these claims:
- malicious prosecution under § 1983; - fabricated evidence under § 1983; - conspiracy to fabricate evidence under § 1983; - malicious prosecution under New York law; - abuse of process under New York law; and - intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from Panetta’s criminal proceedings.
Because Panetta was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and carry out service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses were issued for those defendants.
Order to Show Cause About Time Limits
The court did not immediately dismiss Panetta’s remaining claims as untimely. Instead, it directed her to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why those claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The claims identified for this process included false arrest and abuse of process under § 1983; claims under §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986; civil RICO claims; and New York claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress unrelated to the criminal proceedings, slander, false words, negligence, trespass, and conversion.
The court explained that many of the events underlying these claims occurred between 2012 and 2015, including Panetta’s arrest on April 30, 2012, and conviction on September 5,
- Her conviction was overturned on February 6,
- The court stated that the § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, fabricated evidence, and conspiracy to fabricate evidence appeared to accrue when the conviction was overturned, making those claims appear timely when the complaint was filed on March 9,
- By contrast, the court stated that many other federal claims appeared to accrue between 2012 and 2015 and that their limitations periods appeared to have expired by
- It similarly stated that many other state-law claims appeared to have expired by 2018.
Request for Volunteer Counsel and Appeal Status
The court denied Panetta’s application asking it to seek volunteer counsel without prejudice to filing another application later. The court said it was too early to evaluate the merits of the case, and that the merits were the most important factor in deciding such a request.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to mail Panetta a copy of the order and an information package. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Panetta permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.