Potter v. Port Jervis Police Department
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-07209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Potter v. Port Jervis Police Department, Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action, barring department claims but allowing renewed officer claims if Potter’s conviction is invalidated.
Donald J. Potter’s claims were dismissed: the claims against the Port Jervis Police Department were dismissed with prejudice, while the claims against Andrew Haniuk and Christopher Mehedin were dismissed without prejudice subject to the stated conviction-related condition.
What happened
In Potter v. Port Jervis Police Department, the court dismissed Donald J. Potter’s action against the Port Jervis Police Department, Andrew Haniuk, and Christopher Mehedin. The opinion does not describe the underlying events or claims in detail.
The court dismissed the claims against the Port Jervis Police Department for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, based on claim preclusion. It dismissed the claims against Haniuk and Mehedin for failure to state a claim under a rule that prevents claims from proceeding when success would undermine an existing conviction, but allowed Potter to assert those claims again only if his conviction is overturned or otherwise invalidated. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Louis L. Stanton entered the judgment on December 14, 2020, and directed the Clerk of Court to mail it to Potter and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Potter v. Port Jervis Police Department · No. 1:20-cv-07209
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
The opinion is a civil judgment following an order issued on December 14, 2020. It identifies Donald J. Potter as the plaintiff and the Port Jervis Police Department, Andrew Haniuk, and Christopher Mehedin as defendants. The text does not describe the factual allegations or the specific causes of action.
Rulings
The court dismissed Potter’s claims against the Port Jervis Police Department for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It stated that this dismissal was with prejudice under claim preclusion, a rule that prevents a party from pursuing claims that have already been resolved or could have been resolved in an earlier case.
The court also dismissed Potter’s claims against Haniuk and Mehedin for failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey. The judgment states that this dismissal was without prejudice to asserting those claims again only if Potter’s conviction is overturned or otherwise invalidated.
Other Order
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of the judgment to Potter and note service on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.