Coombs v. United States of America

Background

Adrean Coombs filed this action without a lawyer while incarcerated at Essex County Correctional Facility in New Jersey. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and challenged COVID-19-related actions that he said deprived him of rights under several constitutional amendments. His claims focused partly on Standing Order M10-468, issued by then-Chief Judge Colleen McMahon, which excluded certain periods from the time counted under the federal Speedy Trial Act. Coombs also argued that New Jersey legislation granting certain state prisoners additional COVID-19-related jail credit created an unequal sentence situation for federal prisoners.

Coombs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order ending Standing Order M10-468, four days of jail credit for each day served during the COVID-19 public health emergency, and dismissal of his pending federal criminal proceedings. He also sought damages and styled the complaint as a class action for himself and other prisoners at the facility. The court had previously severed and transferred to the District of New Jersey claims concerning conditions at the New Jersey facility and several New Jersey defendants.

Screening and class allegations

Because Coombs was a prisoner proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss claims over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although pleadings filed without a lawyer are read generously, they still must contain enough factual allegations to make relief plausible.

The court held that Coombs could not represent other prisoners because a person representing himself cannot litigate claims on behalf of others. It therefore treated the complaint as asserting claims only for Coombs, the sole person who signed it.

Federal defendants and judicial immunity

The court dismissed with prejudice Coombs’s claims against the United States, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the United States Department of Justice based on sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally protects the United States and its agencies from lawsuits unless the government has consented to be sued. The court explained that an implied constitutional damages action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics applies only to individual federal officers sued in their personal capacities, not to federal agencies or the United States.

The court also dismissed with prejudice the claims against former Chief Judge Colleen McMahon based on absolute judicial immunity. Judges are generally immune from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. The court determined that issuing Standing Order M10-468 was within McMahon’s authority and jurisdiction as chief judge, so judicial immunity applied.

Claim against Governor Cuomo

Coombs appeared to challenge New York executive orders suspending the state’s speedy-trial time limits. The court noted that Coombs alleged he was a federal pretrial detainee and did not allege that he had state criminal proceedings or that the state suspension affected him personally. Because he did not plead an actual or imminent injury traceable to the challenged state orders, he lacked standing. The court therefore dismissed his claims against Governor Andrew Cuomo. The opinion does not attach a separate prejudice qualifier to that dismissal.

Jail credits and request to stop the criminal case

The court dismissed Coombs’s request for additional jail credits in this civil action. It explained that a civil-rights lawsuit cannot be used to challenge the fact or length of detention. A request that would affect the length of confinement must instead be raised in the pending criminal case or through a petition seeking release from unlawful custody. Awarding the requested credits would affect the length of any sentence Coombs might receive.

The court also declined to intervene in Coombs’s pending federal criminal prosecution. It explained that federal courts generally should not stop criminal prosecutions when the defendant has an adequate opportunity to raise the issue in the criminal case. Because Coombs could raise his speedy-trial arguments in that proceeding, where defense counsel represented him, the court would not enjoin or dismiss the prosecution through this civil action.

Disposition

The court concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to grant leave to amend. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), which concern failure to state a claim and claims seeking relief from an immune defendant. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The clerk was directed to mail Coombs a copy of the order and record service on the docket.