Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 8, 2021

Floyd v. Rosen

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:21-cv-01668
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Civil RightsSection 1983Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Floyd v. Rosen, Judge Karas dismissed claims against prosecutor Kovacs but ordered service on the other defendants in Floyd’s civil-rights case.

Who this affects

John Floyd, III’s claims against Assistant District Attorney Janine Kovacs were dismissed, while the claims against Officers Rosen and Magsmen and the City of Middletown proceeded to service. The order also affected Floyd’s ability to appeal without prepaying fees.

What happened

In Floyd v. Rosen, John Floyd, III, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued officers Rosen and Magsmen, the City of Middletown, and Assistant District Attorney Janine Kovacs under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that they violated his rights during a search and seizure at his girlfriend’s apartment on August 20, 2018.

The court dismissed Floyd’s claims against Kovacs because prosecutors are protected from damages lawsuits for conduct connected with their courtroom duties. The court ordered summonses and service through the U.S. Marshals Service for Rosen, Magsmen, and the City of Middletown.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas also extended the service deadline to 90 days after summonses are issued and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Floyd v. Rosen · No. 7:21-cv-01668
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
June 8, 2021

Background

John Floyd, III, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for violating federal rights. He alleged that Defendants violated his rights during an August 20, 2018 search and seizure at his girlfriend’s apartment in Middletown, New York.

Floyd named Officers Rosen and Magsmen, the City of Middletown, and Orange County Assistant District Attorney Janine Kovacs as Defendants. The court had previously allowed Floyd to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because he was incarcerated and seeking relief from governmental defendants, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Claims Against Kovacs

The court dismissed Floyd’s claims against Kovacs. Floyd alleged that Kovacs did not provide him with copies of documents from his criminal case, including his charges, bill of particulars, and discovery. The court held that these alleged actions were within the scope of Kovacs’s official duties and connected with the conduct of a trial.

Under the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, prosecutors cannot be sued for damages based on conduct closely connected with the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Kovacs because they sought monetary relief from a defendant immune from suit and were frivolous. The opinion does not state that these claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

Service on Remaining Defendants

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Rosen, Magsmen, and the City of Middletown, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service forms, and provide the paperwork needed for the Marshals Service to serve those Defendants. The court extended the time for service until 90 days after the summonses are issued. The opinion states that Floyd must notify the court in writing if his address changes and that the action may be dismissed if he fails to do so.

Disposition

The court dismissed Floyd’s claims against Janine Kovacs. It ordered service on Rosen, Magsmen, and the City of Middletown. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Kenneth M. Karas signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.