Herbin v. Roman

Background

Kevin E. Herbin filed the action while in the custody of the Westchester County Department of Correction. He alleged that defendants violated his federal constitutional rights in connection with his federal criminal proceedings before Judge Nelson S. Román. Herbin had pleaded guilty to drug offenses, received imprisonment followed by supervised release, and later received a six-month prison sentence after admitting a supervised-release violation.

Herbin alleged that he was prematurely released from custody, began rebuilding his life, and was then told that the release had been an error and that he had to return to custody. He described the return as traumatizing, expressed fear of COVID-19 exposure in jail, reported a nervous breakdown and treatment with Vistaril, and asserted that inpatient treatment or home detention would be more suitable. He sought $3 million in damages for harm to his mental health, effects on his family, jail conditions, and alleged constitutional violations.

Screening and Legal Framework

The court had previously granted Herbin permission to proceed without paying the filing fee at the outset. Because he was a prisoner seeking relief against governmental defendants, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that complaints filed without a lawyer are read generously, but still must contain enough factual matter to make a claim plausible.

Herbin identified his action as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court instead construed the claims as arising under Bivens because the defendants were federal agencies or federal employees, not state actors.

Claims Against Judge Nelson Román

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Román under judicial immunity. Judges are absolutely protected from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court concluded that Herbin’s allegations concerned acts related to his criminal case, including the denial of a request to modify his sentence to inpatient treatment or home detention. Herbin did not allege facts showing that Judge Román acted outside the scope of his judicial responsibilities. The court therefore dismissed these claims as barred by judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Claims Against the Federal Defendants

The court also dismissed the claims against the U.S. Marshals Service, the Southern District of New York Probation Office, and the Southern District of New York White Plains courthouse under sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents suits for money damages against the federal government and its agencies unless the government has waived that protection. The court stated that the United States had not consented to damages suits under Bivens.

The court noted that the Federal Tort Claims Act can waive sovereign immunity for certain tort claims, but found that Herbin had not alleged facts showing compliance with that statute’s procedural requirements. The court dismissed the claims against these federal defendants as barred by sovereign immunity and as frivolous.

The opinion also stated that, to the extent Herbin’s filing sought intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings, such relief would be unavailable under the rule limiting federal-court interference with pending criminal proceedings. The court did not grant such intervention.

Disposition

The court denied leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that the complaint be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Herbin permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.