Brickhouse v. DuBois

Background

Raheem J. Brickhouse filed this pro se action against Carl E. DuBois, identified as Sheriff of the Orange County Jail; Anthony J. Annucci, identified as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; and that department. Brickhouse alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional right to due process. He sought injunctive relief and compensation for pain and suffering.

Brickhouse was detained at the Orange County Jail on a parole-violation warrant. He alleged that the parole division issued the warrant around March 3, 2020, that he was taken into temporary custody around March 10, 2020, and that his preliminary parole-revocation hearing was repeatedly rescheduled before occurring on April 8, 2020. He was awaiting scheduling of a final parole-revocation hearing. He also attached a state-court petition challenging his custody and seeking release and cancellation of the warrant. The opinion states that the state petition was filed on June 2, 2020, and that a related appearance was scheduled for August 11, 2020.

Screening standard

Because Brickhouse was a prisoner proceeding without paying the filing fee in advance, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also stated that it would read a self-represented litigant’s allegations generously, but that the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Civil-rights claims for money damages

The court treated Brickhouse’s request for “pain and suffering” as a claim for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute that allows a person to sue for certain violations committed by someone acting under state authority.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against DuBois and Annucci for failure to state a claim. Brickhouse did not allege facts showing that either official was personally involved in the events underlying his claims. The court explained that a supervisor cannot be held liable merely because a subordinate allegedly violated someone’s rights.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. It held that the department was covered by the state’s protection from suits in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, and that New York had not waived that protection or lost it through enactment of § 1983.

Request for injunctive relief

The court dismissed Brickhouse’s claims seeking an injunction—that is, a court order affecting the ongoing parole-revocation proceedings. Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court generally may not interfere with ongoing state proceedings that are similar to criminal prosecutions unless extraordinary circumstances are shown. The court concluded that the parole-revocation proceedings were similar to a criminal prosecution and that Brickhouse had not alleged circumstances warranting federal intervention.

Custody challenge and exhaustion

The court explained that a prisoner seeking to challenge the fact or duration of custody, or seeking release, must generally proceed through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than through § 1983. To the extent Brickhouse’s filing was treated as a § 2254 petition, the court denied it without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies. Exhaustion requires a person to use the available state-court procedures before asking a federal court to review the claim.

The court noted that Brickhouse had filed a state-court custody petition but had not alleged that he had completed the available state process. The opinion states that he could file a federal custody petition after exhausting those remedies.

Disposition

The court dismissed Brickhouse’s § 1983 claims for money damages for failure to state a claim and because some defendants were immune from money damages. It dismissed the § 1983 claims for injunctive relief under the Younger abstention doctrine. To the extent Brickhouse sought custody relief, the court denied the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it concluded that amendment could not cure the defects. Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the clerk to mail the order to Brickhouse and record service on the docket.