Palmer v. United States of America

Background

Oscar Palmer, who was incarcerated at Essex County Correctional Facility in New Jersey, filed this action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. He sued the United States; the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; former Chief Judge Colleen McMahon; the U.S. Department of Justice; and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Palmer alleged that defendants used COVID-19-related orders to violate rights under several constitutional amendments. He challenged Standing Order M10-468, which excluded certain periods from the time counted under the federal Speedy Trial Act. He also alleged that New York’s COVID-19 orders created unequal treatment concerning jail-time credits. He sought an order ending the standing order, four days of jail credit for each day served during the COVID-19 emergency, dismissal of his pending federal criminal proceedings, and damages. He styled the case as a class action on behalf of himself and other prisoners.

The court explained that prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or employees must be screened. At screening, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Class-action request

Because Palmer was proceeding without a lawyer, the court held that he could not represent other prisoners. It therefore treated the complaint as asserting claims only on Palmer’s behalf.

Claims against the federal entities

Palmer primarily invoked an implied constitutional claim known as a Bivens action. The court explained that such an action is available only against an individual federal officer sued in a personal capacity, not against the United States or a federal agency. Sovereign immunity—the rule generally protecting the federal government from suit unless it consents—also barred the claims against the United States, the federal district court, and the Department of Justice. The court dismissed those claims with prejudice based on sovereign immunity.

Claims against Judge McMahon

The court held that issuing standing orders was within Judge McMahon’s judicial authority. Judicial immunity—absolute protection from damages claims for actions taken within a judge’s judicial responsibilities—therefore applied. The court dismissed the claims against Judge McMahon with prejudice based on absolute judicial immunity.

Claims against Governor Cuomo

The court understood Palmer to be challenging New York executive orders that suspended or modified state speedy-trial limits. Because Palmer alleged that he was a federal pretrial detainee and did not allege state criminal proceedings or facts showing that the state orders affected him, the court found that he had not shown standing. Standing requires an actual or imminent injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court decision could remedy. The court dismissed Palmer’s claims against Governor Cuomo.

Requests for jail credits and intervention in the criminal case

The court held that Palmer could not use a civil-rights action to challenge the fact or length of his detention by seeking additional jail credits. Such a challenge had to be raised in his criminal proceedings or through a petition seeking release or a change in the detention’s legal basis. The court therefore dismissed the claim seeking additional credits toward a possible sentence.

The court also declined to intervene in Palmer’s pending federal criminal prosecution. It reasoned that Palmer could raise his speedy-trial arguments in that prosecution, where defense counsel represented him, so an adequate legal remedy was available. The court therefore declined to enjoin or dismiss the criminal proceedings through this civil case.

Disposition

The court concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to give Palmer permission to amend. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), provisions requiring dismissal of an action that fails to state a claim or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order expressly described only the claims against the federal entities and Judge McMahon as dismissed with prejudice; it did not add that qualifier to the dismissal of the complaint as a whole.