Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn

Background

Anthony F. Debellis, also identified in the caption as Gianfranco, brought this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights. He was incarcerated at Mohawk Correctional Facility when the order was issued. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying court fees, subject to the requirement that prisoners generally remain responsible for the filing fee.

Debellis initially alleged that he had worked for the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services for fifteen years, had been arrested three times in retaliation for reporting corruption, and had been unlawfully fired. The court required amended pleadings because the earlier complaints lacked enough supporting facts. The court treated Debellis’s September 11, 2020 letter as the operative pleading and directed that his second amended complaint be included as a supplemental filing for context.

The letter identified claims concerning arrests on July 20 and July 23, 2017, and an arrest on or about September 19, 2018. Debellis alleged that the first July arrest lacked probable cause, that police searched his home without a warrant during the second July arrest, and that a plainclothes officer sexually assaulted him during the September 2018 traffic-stop arrest. He also alleged that Lieutenant White and Police Officer Justin Allen knew the identity of the plainclothes officer. The opinion states that the outcome of the state criminal proceedings related to the September 2018 arrest was unclear.

Court’s Screening and Rulings

Because Debellis was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under federal statutes requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Claims arising from the September 2018 arrest. The court applied the rule from Heck v. Humphrey: a prisoner generally cannot obtain damages through a civil-rights claim when success would necessarily invalidate an existing criminal conviction or sentence, unless that conviction or sentence has been overturned. The court determined that the state criminal proceedings were either ongoing or had resulted in a conviction, and that the alleged wrongdoing connected to the September 2018 arrest could undermine that conviction or sentence. The court therefore dismissed without prejudice Debellis’s claims arising from that arrest.

Claims against Danielle Koves and Alex Sanchez. The court dismissed the claims against Assistant District Attorney Danielle Koves because prosecutors are immune from lawsuits for conduct covered by prosecutorial immunity. It dismissed the claims against Alex Sanchez because a privately retained criminal defense lawyer does not act under the necessary government involvement to be sued under § 1983. The conclusion states that the claims against both Koves and Sanchez were dismissed; it does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice qualifier to those dismissals.

Adding defendants. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the court directed the Clerk to add these defendants to the caption: Police Officer Solomon #15004; Police Officer Justin Allen #6922; Lieutenant White #18909; 48th Precinct Detective Nash; Sergeant Flynn #858; Juan O’Sullivan of the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications; and DCAS Disciplinary Counsel Erick Hicks. The amendment was without prejudice to defenses those defendants might later assert.

Service of process. Because Debellis had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court directed the Clerk and the U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the necessary papers on the seven added defendants. The court extended the service period until ninety days after the summons was issued. It also directed Debellis to notify the court if his address changed.

Result

The order dismissed the claims against Koves and Sanchez; dismissed without prejudice the claims arising from the September 2018 arrest; left the claims arising from the two July 2017 arrests and the sexual-assault claim for further proceedings; added seven defendants; and ordered service. The court denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.