Kirkland v. DiFiore

Background

Tarence Kirkland, representing himself, brought a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought $50 million in damages. He challenged events connected to two New York state criminal proceedings. The defendants named in the complaint included Janet DiFiore, whom the opinion identifies as the former Supreme Court Justice who sentenced Kirkland in his 2003 statutory rape case; James Bavero, an Assistant District Attorney; and Anthony A. Scarpino Jr., the Westchester County District Attorney. In a supplemental filing, Kirkland also identified Jeffrey Chartier, Jeanine Pirro, and the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office.

Kirkland alleged that his 2003 conviction should not have been treated as a violent felony during sentencing for his later drug convictions. He also alleged that his sentence was illegal and that various officials violated his rights during the state-court proceedings. The court treated the complaint and supplemental filing together as the operative complaint. Kirkland had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the statute governing cases filed without advance payment of fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said that self-represented pleadings are read liberally but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Claims against DiFiore

The court dismissed the claims against DiFiore under absolute judicial immunity. Judges are generally immune from damages suits for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court concluded that any conduct by DiFiore connected to presiding over Kirkland’s state criminal case was within her judicial duties. It also stated that these claims were untimely because Kirkland sued more than 17 years after the 2003 sentence.

Claims against prosecutors

The court dismissed the claims against Bavero, Chartier, Scarpino, and Pirro because the challenged conduct was within their official duties and connected with the judicial phase of criminal proceedings. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages claims for that type of conduct. The court also characterized those claims as frivolous under the fee-waiver screening statute. The opinion further states that the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office is not a legally proper defendant under § 1983 because it is not a “person” for purposes of that statute.

Challenge to the conviction and sentence

The court held that Kirkland’s claim that he was wrongfully sentenced as a second felony offender was barred by the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey. That rule generally prevents a prisoner from using § 1983 to obtain damages or equitable relief when success would necessarily show that a conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been overturned or otherwise invalidated. Kirkland did not allege that his 2017 conviction had been overturned or invalidated. The court therefore dismissed this claim for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under the federal screening statute, denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment, and directed the clerk to terminate the other pending matters in the case. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to the dismissal. The court also warned Kirkland that further duplicative or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without paying fees in advance unless he first obtained permission.