Barnett v. The City of Yonkers
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:15-cv-04013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Barnett v. Logan, Judge Karas granted Logan’s motion to dismiss with prejudice because absolute prosecutorial immunity protected the alleged conduct.
Jerome Barnett’s claims against Richard Logan were dismissed with prejudice, and Barnett was denied leave to amend. The action continued as to the remaining parties identified in the opinion, including Karl A. Scully.
What happened
In Barnett v. The City of Yonkers, Jerome Barnett, who was representing himself, sued Richard Logan and others over events connected to criminal cases in Yonkers City Court and Westchester County Court. The court had already granted judgment to the Yonkers defendants in 2018; this opinion addressed Logan’s separate motion to dismiss.
Barnett alleged that Logan, a former assistant district attorney, worked with defense lawyers to delay Barnett’s Yonkers City Court case through repeated adjournments. Logan argued that he was protected by absolute immunity, that the complaint failed to state legal claims, and that other procedural and timing rules barred the claims. Barnett did not submit a response to the motion.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Logan’s motion to dismiss. The judge ruled that requesting adjournments during a pending criminal proceeding was part of a prosecutor’s work as an advocate and therefore protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The dismissal was with prejudice, and Barnett was denied permission to amend the complaint; the opinion did not decide Logan’s other arguments.
The detailed version
- Barnett v. The City of Yonkers · No. 7:15-cv-04013
- Kenneth Karas
- May 19, 2020
Background
Jerome Barnett sued the City of Yonkers, Detective Sullivan, Karl A. Scully, and Richard Logan, asserting constitutional and New York state-law violations. Barnett represented himself. The court previously granted summary judgment to the Yonkers defendants and entered judgment in their favor. The opinion addressed only Logan’s motion to dismiss.
Barnett alleged that Logan, who was an assistant district attorney during the relevant events, acted with Scully and T. Brundage to delay Barnett’s Yonkers City Court case until after sentencing in a separate Westchester County Court matter. The complaint identified repeated adjournments as the conduct supporting Barnett’s claim against Logan. Barnett sought damages and other relief.
Motion and Standard
Logan moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Logan argued that absolute immunity barred the claims, that the complaint did not state claims for malicious prosecution, due process violations, or conspiracy, that the complaint did not comply with the rule governing service of process, and that statutes of limitations barred many claims. Barnett requested additional time to respond but never filed a response, so the court treated the motion as fully submitted.
Because Barnett was representing himself, the court was required to read his complaint liberally and interpret it to present the strongest claims suggested by its allegations. The court nevertheless applied the ordinary pleading requirements, which require factual allegations supporting a plausible claim rather than labels or conclusions.
Absolute Immunity
Absolute immunity is complete protection from civil damages suits for prosecutors acting as advocates for the government in conduct closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court explained that the protection depends on the function performed, not simply on the person’s job title. Prosecutors generally receive this protection for initiating and pursuing criminal prosecutions, preparing cases for court, evaluating evidence for presentation, and making charging decisions. The protection does not cover investigative work normally performed by police officers or detectives.
The court held that Logan’s alleged requests for adjournments were part of pursuing a criminal prosecution. The court also noted that the alleged conduct occurred while a court proceeding in which Logan acted as an advocate was pending. It therefore concluded that absolute prosecutorial immunity applied to every allegation against Logan. The court did not reach Logan’s other arguments.
Disposition
The court granted Logan’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Logan from the action with prejudice because absolute immunity made amendment futile and denied Barnett leave to amend. The opinion states that the remaining parties were Barnett and Scully, for whom the court scheduled a status conference.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.