Richardson v. Arshad

Background

DeWayne Richardson brought this action without a lawyer while held in the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. He sued Police Officer Rufian Arshad, Assistant District Attorney Michael Perez, the City of New York, and the State of New York. He sought damages, release from custody, and an order of protection. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and federal habeas law, which allows a person to challenge certain forms of custody.

The court had previously granted Richardson permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Richardson was a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer and sought relief from government defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. At this stage, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Against New York State

The court dismissed Richardson’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York under the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a state from being sued in federal court unless the state has waived its immunity or Congress has validly removed it. The court held 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.

Claims Against Michael Perez

The court dismissed Richardson’s § 1983 damages claims against Assistant District Attorney Michael Perez under prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are generally absolutely immune from damages lawsuits for actions within their prosecutorial duties, including actions closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court found that Richardson’s claims against Perez arose from Perez’s prosecution of Richardson.

Release From Custody

The court treated Richardson’s requests for release as requests for federal habeas relief. For a state pretrial detainee, the appropriate procedure is generally a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Before seeking that relief in federal court, however, the person must first exhaust available state-court remedies. Because Richardson alleged no facts showing that he had exhausted those remedies, the court dismissed his habeas claims without prejudice.

Claims Allowed to Proceed and Service

The court directed service of the complaint on Arshad and the City of New York. Because Richardson had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses, complete the required service forms, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses were issued. It instructed Richardson to request more time if service was not completed within that period and to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Richardson’s claims against the State of New York and Perez. It dismissed his claims seeking release from custody without prejudice. It ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and arrange service on Arshad and the City of New York. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.