Best v. Merchant

Background

Hilary A. Best filed an action seeking damages and alleging that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. Best was proceeding without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute used for certain constitutional claims against state or local actors, and under state law.

The defendants named in the complaint were New York City Correction Officers James Merchant and Benjamin Fontanez, and Bronx County Assistant District Attorneys identified as “Jane Doe” and “John Doe.”

Screening of the Claims Against the Prosecutors

Under the statute governing complaints filed without paying the filing fee, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court applied that screening requirement to Best’s claims against the two prosecutors.

The court held that Best’s individual-capacity claims under § 1983 arose from the prosecutors’ criminal prosecution of him. Prosecutors have absolute immunity from damages lawsuits for prosecutorial actions closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court therefore dismissed those claims based on prosecutorial immunity and treated them as frivolous under the screening statute.

The court also dismissed Best’s official-capacity claims against “Jane Doe” and “John Doe” under Eleventh Amendment immunity. The opinion explains that, when prosecuting cases in New York, a district attorney acts as a state official rather than a municipal official for purposes relevant to that immunity.

Correction Officers and Other Directions

The court did not state a disposition of Best’s claims against Merchant and Fontanez in the quoted order. Instead, it directed the Clerk of Court to notify the New York City Department of Correction and the New York City Law Department, and it requested that Merchant and Fontanez waive service of the summons.

The Clerk was also directed to mail Best a copy of the order and an information package. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the purpose of an appeal.

Disposition

The court dismissed Best’s § 1983 claims against “Jane Doe” and “John Doe.” It did not specify a disposition of the state-law claims in the text provided.