Datta v. DEA Agents

Background

Vikram Datta, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint concerning his January 15, 2011 arrest by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, his detention, and his prosecution in the Southern District of New York. He named federal agents, Internal Revenue Service agents, federal judges, federal prosecutors, and a Passaic County Sheriff’s Department task-force officer, among others. He alleged constitutional violations and sought damages and court orders.

The court construed claims against federal officers as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which allows certain damages claims against federal officers for constitutional violations. It construed the claim against the Passaic County officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for certain violations by state officials. The court also construed portions of the complaint as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging Datta’s federal conviction or sentence.

The court reviewed the criminal proceedings associated with docket numbers 1:11-MJ-0108 and 1:11-CR-0102. A warrant was issued, Datta was arrested and detained, and a jury later found him guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to travel internationally in aid of racketeering. The court stated that he received a 235-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release, along with an order forfeiting funds and property. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, and the Supreme Court denied review. The court also stated that an earlier motion challenging the conviction had been denied on the merits and that later motions had been transferred to the Second Circuit; the Second Circuit had not authorized another challenge to that conviction or sentence.

Rulings

Successive conviction-or-sentence challenge. The court recharacterized the portions of Datta’s complaint challenging his conviction or sentence as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Because Datta had not shown that the Second Circuit authorized such a motion, the court transferred those claims to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The transfer was not a ruling on the validity of his conviction or sentence.

Official-capacity claims. The court dismissed claims against federal officers in their official capacities under sovereign immunity, which generally prevents suits against the federal government and federal officers acting in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived. The court also stated that any claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act would fail because Datta did not allege that he had first filed the required administrative claim and received a final determination, or that six months had passed without one.

Claims against judges. The court dismissed the Bivens claims against District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, Magistrate Judges Debra Freeman and James L. Cott, and the Second Circuit judges involved in Datta’s criminal and post-conviction proceedings. It held that the challenged conduct consisted of decisions made in the judges’ judicial capacities and was therefore protected by judicial immunity. The court also dismissed claims against Magistrate Judges Guillermo R. Garcia, Gabriel W. Gorenstein, and Andrew J. Peck, other unspecified judges, and unspecified federal prosecutors because Datta alleged no facts showing their personal involvement.

Claim against the prosecutor. The court dismissed Datta’s Bivens claim against Assistant United States Attorney Peter Skinner under prosecutorial immunity. The court held that the claim was based on Skinner’s actions within his prosecutorial duties and connected with the criminal proceeding.

Malicious-prosecution claims. The court treated Datta’s challenges to his arrest, confinement, and prosecution as malicious-prosecution claims under Bivens and § 1983. It dismissed those claims because Datta’s conviction and sentence had not been overturned, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question in a way indicating his innocence. The court therefore did not reach the factual or legal validity of the arrest, prosecution, conviction, or sentence.

Leave to amend and appeal-related rulings. The court denied Datta leave to file an amended complaint, finding amendment would be futile. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Datta had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Finally, it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims except the claims it transferred to the Second Circuit as a second or successive § 2255 motion. It denied leave to amend. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.