Fishman v. New York State Unified Court System

Background

Marc Fishman filed this lawsuit without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He alleged that Defendants violated his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to reasonably accommodate disabilities that he said resulted from two 2013 car accidents. Fishman alleged that the failures occurred during his criminal trial in Westchester County Court and prevented him from meaningfully participating in the trial or assisting his attorney. His criminal case was still pending when this order was issued. He sought money damages, a new trial, and other injunctive and declaratory relief.

Westchester County

The court treated Fishman’s claims against Westchester County as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To hold a municipality liable under that statute, a plaintiff must allege that a municipal policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court found that Fishman had not alleged facts explaining what Westchester County did or failed to do, or how a county policy, custom, or practice caused his injuries. It dismissed those claims but granted leave to replead facts supporting municipal liability. The court also stated that the Westchester County Courts could not be sued in their own name and that Fishman would need to name Westchester County instead.

State-Court Defendants

The court dismissed Fishman’s claims against the New York State Unified Court System and Jim Mccalister, John Sullivan, Rhonda Brown, and John Mechman. It held that these claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, which generally prevents suits against a state, its agencies, and its state agents in federal court unless an exception applies. The court stated that New York had not waived this immunity and that Congress had not removed it for these § 1983 claims.

Prosecutors

The court dismissed the claims against Former DA Anthony Scarpino, Former Assistant District Attorney Victor Olde, and District Attorney Miriam Rocah. It held that the challenged conduct was within their official duties and connected with the conduct of a criminal trial. Prosecutorial immunity protects prosecutors from civil damages suits for such conduct.

Pending Criminal Proceedings

The court also ruled that it could not intervene in Fishman’s pending state criminal proceedings. Under the rule recognized in Younger v. Harris, a federal court generally must not stop a pending state criminal case absent circumstances such as bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Fishman had not alleged those circumstances.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint because it sought relief from defendants protected by immunity and because the requested intervention was barred by the rule requiring federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings. The court granted Fishman 30 days to file an amended complaint, but only as to a possible municipal-liability claim against Westchester County. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the Pro Se Intake Unit and comply with the factual pleading instructions in the order. If Fishman did not timely amend or show good cause for failing to do so, the court stated that it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.