Panetta v. Cassel
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Panetta v. Cassel, Judge Halpern dismissed some claims, ordered service on others, and required Panetta to explain why remaining claims were not time-barred.
Sylvia Panetta’s case was partly screened out. Claims against the named judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and Orange County Office of the Aging were dismissed on the stated grounds; claims against the defendants designated for service proceeded to that stage; and Panetta had 30 days to address the possible time bars affecting her remaining claims.
What happened
Panetta v. Cassel involved Sylvia Panetta, who represented herself and sued about 65 defendants under federal and New York law. Her claims included allegations involving criminal proceedings, civil rights, racketeering, and state-law injuries.
The court dismissed claims seeking criminal prosecution, claims barred by judicial, prosecutorial, witness, or state immunity, and claims against the Orange County Office of the Aging. It ordered service on specified defendants for six claims, including malicious prosecution and fabricated evidence, and required Panetta to explain within 30 days why other claims should not be dismissed as too late. The court also denied her request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the amended service order on May 18, 2020. He also denied fee-free status for any appeal, while allowing the surviving claims to proceed to service and requiring Panetta’s response on the potential time limits.
The detailed version
- Panetta v. Cassel · No. 7:20-cv-02255
- Philip Halpern
- May 18, 2020
Background
Sylvia Panetta appeared without a lawyer and filed a 209-page complaint against approximately 65 defendants. The defendants included the Town of Wallkill, the County of Orange, current and former Town of Wallkill police personnel, prosecutors, judges, Orange County jail personnel, other local government officials, a local government office, and private individuals and organizations. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986; civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; New York-law claims; and claims under criminal statutes. She sought damages, costs, and attorney fees.
The court had previously allowed Panetta to proceed without prepaying filing fees. This order screened her complaint under the statute governing such cases, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Claims Dismissed
The court dismissed any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of defendants or other people because a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case.
The court dismissed Panetta’s claims against the Orange County Office of the Aging because, under New York law as described in the opinion, a municipal agency or department does not have a separate legal identity that allows it to be sued.
The court dismissed Panetta’s claims under § 1983 for damages against Judges Patrick S. Owen, Joseph A. Owen, and Steven Brockett in their individual capacities because the claims arose from actions within their judicial responsibilities and were therefore barred by judicial immunity. It also dismissed the claims against them in their official capacities under state immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment.
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 in their individual capacities to the extent those claims arose from their prosecutorial actions. Those claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity. The court also dismissed the official-capacity claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
The court dismissed § 1983 damages claims based on defendants’ testimony in state-court proceedings because witnesses have immunity from liability for their testimony, even when the testimony is alleged to be false.
Claims Sent for 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 defendants were required to respond to these claims:
- Malicious prosecution under §
- 2. Fabricated evidence under §
- 3. Conspiracy to fabricate evidence under §
- 4. Malicious prosecution under New York law.
- Abuse of process under New York law.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law arising from Panetta’s criminal proceedings.
Because Panetta was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court instructed the Clerk of Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to handle service. The time for service was extended until 90 days after summonses were issued.
Potentially Time-Barred Claims
The court stated that many remaining claims appeared to be outside the applicable statutes of limitations, which are deadlines for filing lawsuits. It directed Panetta to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why those claims should not be dismissed as time-barred. The claims identified for this response 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 opinion stated that the events underlying the claims occurred between 2012 and 2015. Panetta’s arrest occurred on April 30, 2012, her conviction occurred on September 5, 2015, and her conviction was overturned on February 6, 2020. The court concluded that the malicious-prosecution, fabricated-evidence, and conspiracy-to-fabricate-evidence claims under § 1983 appeared to have accrued when the conviction was overturned and appeared timely. It likewise stated that certain related New York claims appeared timely, while other federal and state claims appeared to have accrued earlier and appeared untimely.
The court did not yet dismiss the claims identified in the show-cause portion. It stated that it would dismiss them as time-barred if Panetta failed to file the declaration or failed to show cause.
Counsel and Appeal
The court denied Panetta’s request for the court to seek pro bono counsel without prejudice to filing another application later, explaining that it was too early to assess the merits of the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern dismissed the specified claims, directed service on the defendants facing the six listed claims, ordered Panetta to show cause why other claims should not be dismissed as time-barred, and denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.