Nieves v. The City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nieves v. City of New York, Judge Stanton dismissed the federal case because the same claims were already being litigated in state court.
Michael Nieves’s federal complaint against The City of New York was dismissed because the same claims were being litigated in a state-court action. The opinion also states that the claims would likely be dismissed as time-barred if the court did not abstain.
What happened
In Nieves v. The City of New York, Michael Nieves alleged that he was falsely arrested, falsely imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted after his arrest on January 21, 2014. He said the criminal charges were dismissed on August 11, 2015, and a state-court case involving the same events was already scheduled for trial.
The federal court ordered Nieves to explain why it should not decline to hear the case while the state case was pending. It also asked why the claims should not be dismissed as filed too late and dismissed the claims against Andrew F. Plasse. Nieves did not respond to that order.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the federal complaint because the court declined to exercise jurisdiction under a rule favoring coordination with a parallel state case. The judge added that, if that rule did not apply, the claims would likely be dismissed as time-barred.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02138
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
Michael Nieves filed this action without a lawyer and requested to proceed without paying filing fees. He alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution based on an arrest on January 21, 2014. He alleged that the criminal charges were dismissed on August 11, 2015.
Nieves attached a summons dated August 8, 2016, and a complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, by his attorney, Andrew F. Plasse of Andrew F. Plasse & Associates, LLP. That state-court action asserted the same facts: the January 21, 2014 arrest and the later dismissal of the criminal charges. The opinion states that the state-court matter was scheduled for trial on November 2, 2020.
Court’s analysis
Because Nieves was already litigating the same claims in state court, the court ordered him to explain why it should not decline to exercise jurisdiction under the Colorado River doctrine. That doctrine allows a federal court, in limited circumstances, to refrain from hearing a case in the interest of coordinating with a parallel state proceeding and conserving judicial resources. The court also ordered Nieves to explain why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred and dismissed the claims against Andrew F. Plasse. Nieves did not respond within the time allowed.
Ruling
The court dismissed Nieves’s complaint because it abstained, meaning it declined to exercise jurisdiction, under the Colorado River doctrine. The opinion did not decide whether the false-arrest, false-imprisonment, or malicious-prosecution allegations were legally valid. It stated that, if the Colorado River doctrine did not bar the action, the court would likely dismiss the claims as time-barred.
Judge Louis L. Stanton directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Nieves and note service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.