Winters v. The State of New York

Background

Michael Winters, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He also sought to bring criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.

Winters alleged that on October 8, 2019, Yorktown police officers surrounded and raided his grandmother’s house, where he was staying. He said the officers were enforcing an extreme-risk protection order issued based on affidavits from two of his cousins. He alleged that the affidavits contained fabricated statements and that a search warrant was obtained as a result. According to Winters, police confiscated prop guns, air rifles, and one actual firearm. He said he was never charged with a crime, jailed, or interrogated.

Winters alleged that Governor Andrew Cuomo violated constitutional rights by signing New York’s extreme-risk protection order law. He sought repeal of the law, return of his property, criminal charges against his cousins and Governor Cuomo, and $17.88 million in damages. He also alleged emotional distress, anxiety, stomach problems, and a car crash.

Court’s screening analysis

Because Winters was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.

Criminal-charge requests. The court dismissed any claims seeking criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. It held that a private plaintiff cannot require the court or prosecutors to arrest or prosecute another person because the decision to bring criminal charges belongs to prosecutors.

Claims against New York and Governor Cuomo. The court dismissed Winters’s § 1983 claims against the State of New York and Governor Cuomo under the Eleventh Amendment. That doctrine generally prevents states and state agents from being sued in federal court unless immunity has been waived or removed by Congress. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it through § 1983. The court held that the immunity applied to Winters’s requests for damages, injunctive relief, and retrospective declaratory relief.

Search-and-seizure claim. The court construed Winters’s allegations about the police raid and confiscation of property as a claim under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because Winters alleged that the police had a warrant, the search and seizure were presumed reasonable. The court stated that this presumption could be overcome by facts showing that the warrant application knowingly or recklessly contained false statements or material omissions that were necessary to probable cause. The court found that Winters had made only conclusory allegations and had not identified an individual state actor who was personally involved. It directed him, in an amended complaint, to name the officers and allege facts showing that the warrant was invalid or obtained through fraud or other misrepresentations.

Property claim. The court dismissed Winters’s claim seeking return of the seized property. It held that a property-deprivation claim is not available in federal court when state courts provide an adequate remedy. The court found that New York provides such a remedy and that Winters had not alleged facts showing that the state remedy was inadequate or inappropriate.

Second Amendment claim. The court construed Winters’s challenge to the extreme-risk protection order as a possible Second Amendment claim. It explained the two-step approach used in the Second Circuit for evaluating such challenges, including whether the law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and, if so, what level of review applies. The court did not decide whether the order violated the Second Amendment. Instead, it directed Winters to reallege the claim and identify the state official or officials he sought to enjoin.

Disposition and leave to amend

The court granted Winters 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to identify the individuals involved, describe the relevant facts and events, explain how each defendant violated his rights, and state the requested relief. The court permitted use of “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” for unidentified defendants but explained that doing so would not pause the applicable limitations period. No summons issued at that time. The court warned that failure to amend within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore issued a procedural screening order: he dismissed several categories of claims but allowed Winters an opportunity to amend the remaining potential claims. The order did not finally decide whether the police search, property seizure, or extreme-risk protection order violated the Constitution.