Petties v. Smalls

Background

Timothy Derome Petties brought this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, against Judge D. Riviezzo and Correction Officer Richardson. The opinion states that Petties was being held at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island. The court had granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the start of the case, and the operative pleading was an amended complaint filed after an earlier order directed Petties to amend.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint. Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, although they still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The opinion questions whether Petties was an attorney because he used “Esq.” and another designation in the captions, but it does not resolve that issue.

Claims Against Judge Riviezzo

The court held that judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within the scope of their judicial responsibilities. Judicial immunity generally covers acts arising from or related to cases before the judge, and allegations of bad faith or malice do not overcome that protection. The exception for actions outside a judge’s judicial capacity or taken without jurisdiction did not apply on the allegations presented.

The court found that Petties alleged no facts suggesting that Judge Riviezzo acted outside her judicial capacity. It also noted that the complaint did not allege facts showing that she was personally involved in a violation. The court therefore dismissed Petties’s claims against Judge Riviezzo under the prisoner-screening statute.

Request for Release from Custody

The court explained that a prisoner cannot obtain release from custody through a § 1983 action. A request challenging the fact or duration of custody must instead be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court request challenging unlawful custody. The court discussed relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and stated that a state pretrial detainee challenging allegedly unlawful custody must first exhaust available state-court remedies, including pursuing state habeas proceedings and, when necessary, an appeal to New York’s highest court.

Because Petties did not show that he had exhausted available state-court remedies before filing his request under § 2241, the court denied without prejudice any application for that relief. The order did not decide whether Petties’s underlying custody was lawful.

Service and Discovery

The court directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department. It requested that Correction Officer Richardson waive service of the summons.

The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies. That rule requires defendants in certain prisoner cases to respond to specified, court-ordered interrogatories and document requests. The defendants were required to serve responses within 120 days of the order and to quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed Petties’s claims against Judge Riviezzo. It denied without prejudice any application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies, requested that Richardson waive service, and directed notice to the relevant correction and law departments. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.