Curcio v. Grossman

Background

Rosanna Curcio, appearing without a lawyer and proceeding without prepaying court fees, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on divorce and child-custody proceedings in the Putnam County Supreme Court. She sued Judge Victor Grossman, Donna E. Abrams, a court-appointed lawyer for her children, and Laura Roberts, the lawyer for the children’s father.

Curcio alleged that the defendants contributed to changes in custody and visitation, a 2016 arrest, events involving criminal charges, testimony by her child, and later family-court proceedings. She claimed violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and sought money damages for fraud on the court and abuse of process, false arrest, and denial of a fair trial.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court screened the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money damages from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against Judge Grossman. The court dismissed Curcio’s § 1983 claims against Judge Grossman because judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Curcio’s allegations concerned Judge Grossman’s decisions and actions while handling her family-court proceedings. It also described those claims as frivolous for purposes of the fee-screening statute.

Claims against Abrams. The court dismissed all claims against Abrams for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 generally requires conduct taken under governmental authority. The court found that Abrams, a lawyer appointed to represent Curcio’s children, did not work for a government body and therefore was not a government actor under that statute.

Claims against Roberts. To the extent Curcio sued Roberts as the father’s private lawyer, the court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim because private lawyers generally are not government actors under § 1983. To the extent Curcio sued Roberts for actions as a prosecutor, the court dismissed those claims because prosecutors have absolute immunity for conduct directly connected to a criminal trial. The court also characterized those claims as frivolous and as seeking money damages from an immune defendant.

Claims arising from the state-court proceedings. The court applied the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, which prevents a federal district court from acting as an appeals court over a state-court judgment. It concluded that Curcio had lost in state court, alleged injuries caused by the state-court judgment, sought federal review of that judgment, and filed this federal action after the state-court judgment. The court therefore dismissed all claims arising from Curcio’s family-court proceedings under that doctrine.

False-arrest claims. The court treated Curcio’s allegation that Abrams and Roberts had her falsely arrested on July 25, 2016, as a false-arrest claim. It ruled that the claim was time-barred because § 1983 claims generally have a three-year limitations period and Curcio did not file this action until May 17, 2021.

Possible malicious-prosecution claim. The court construed Curcio’s allegation that she was arrested but never convicted as also asserting a malicious-prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment. It concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege that a defendant actively initiated a prosecution with malice and without probable cause, that the proceedings ended in a way affirmatively showing Curcio’s innocence, or that the claim was timely. Despite these defects, the court granted Curcio 30 days to replead this claim. It identified facts an amended complaint would need to address, including the arrest date, the charges, the date the charges were dismissed, who arrested her, who initiated the prosecution, and each person’s role in it.

Disposition

The court dismissed Curcio’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii), with 30 days’ leave to replead the malicious-prosecution claim. The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Curcio and record service. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.