Kirkland v. New York State Division of Parole

Background

Tarence Kirkland, representing himself, sued the New York State Division of Parole; Parole Officer Ms. Pagan; Betty Kyles; District Attorneys Janet DiFiore and James Bavero; Judge Anne E. Minihan; and Allan Focarile, identified as a Legal Aid Society of Westchester lawyer. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and sought $10 million in damages.

Kirkland alleged claims related to his 2017 Westchester County conviction for two counts of third-degree sale of narcotics, his sentence as a second felony offender, his earlier 2002 conviction, and his post-release supervision. The opinion states that he was released to post-release supervision on October 8, 2020. He also named Pagan and Kyles, but the complaint did not describe any conduct by either officer.

Screening standard

Because Kirkland was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought damages from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, but the complaint still had to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Claims challenging the convictions

The court held that a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper vehicle to challenge the validity of a state conviction or seek release from custody. Those challenges generally must be brought through a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after the required state-court exhaustion. The court found that Kirkland’s application did not show exhaustion of his state remedies and declined to convert the damages action into such a petition.

The court also declined to convert Kirkland’s claims about his fully served 2002 conviction into a custody challenge. The order stated that nothing in it prevented Kirkland from bringing a § 2254 petition that complied with the standards described in the order. It did not decide the validity of either conviction on the merits.

Allan Focarile

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against Focarile because he was a Legal Aid attorney and therefore was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983. The court concluded that amendment of these claims would be futile.

James Bavero

The court dismissed the claims against District Attorney James Bavero. It held that the challenged actions were within the scope of his official duties and connected with the conduct of a criminal trial, so prosecutorial immunity barred the damages claims. The court also characterized those claims as frivolous under the screening statute. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

Anne Minihan and Janet DiFiore

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Anne Minihan and Judge Janet DiFiore under absolute judicial immunity. The claims concerned actions related to individual judicial proceedings, including Minihan’s handling of Kirkland’s criminal case and DiFiore’s handling of a sex-offender-classification hearing. The court concluded that amendment of these claims would be futile.

New York State Division of Parole

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the New York State Division of Parole because the Eleventh Amendment barred damages claims against the state agency. The court concluded that amendment would be futile.

Pagan and Kyles

The court dismissed the claims against Pagan and Kyles because the Eleventh Amendment barred damages claims against them in their official capacities and because Kirkland alleged no facts showing their direct and personal involvement in a constitutional violation in their individual capacities. The court also explained that damages claims based on the injury of being convicted and imprisoned may be barred unless the conviction or sentence has been invalidated, if success would necessarily imply that the conviction or sentence was invalid.

Unlike the claims against the immune defendants and Focarile, the court found it unclear whether Kirkland might be able to state some claim against Pagan and Kyles. It therefore granted Kirkland 30 days’ leave to replead his claims against those two defendants. The amended complaint had to identify who violated his federally protected rights, the facts showing the violation, when and where it occurred, and why he was entitled to relief.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead the possible claims against Pagan and Kyles. It did not grant leave to replead the claims against Bavero, DiFiore, Minihan, the New York State Division of Parole, or Focarile. If Kirkland did not amend within 30 days, the court stated that it would enter judgment consistent with the order. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.