McMurray v. Stolz

Background

Marcellus McMurray, who appeared without a lawyer, sued Justice Robert Stolz, Justice Laura Ward, Assistant District Attorney Dasha Kabakova, District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and New York City Police Officer Stephen Polesovsky. He alleged violations of federal constitutional rights and New York Penal Law. The court understood his complaint to seek damages and court orders under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal relief from his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and relief under state law.

McMurray alleged that Officer Polesovsky arrested him in Manhattan on January 27, 2014, after observing him hit another person with a cane. He described repeated adjournments and transfers of his criminal case among state-court judges. He alleged that he was found not guilty of third-degree assault but was found guilty of felony charges that, he said, had not been charged through an arraignment or indictment. The opinion states that court records showed convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and attempted assault involving a weapon, followed by an aggregate sentence of two to four years. The state conviction was affirmed on appeal, and further review was denied.

Court’s Analysis

Because McMurray had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims against Judges Stolz and Ward. The court dismissed McMurray’s § 1983 claims against Judges Stolz and Ward under judicial immunity and as frivolous. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from damages claims based on acts performed as part of their judicial responsibilities, even when a plaintiff alleges bad faith or malice. The court found that McMurray’s allegations concerned the judges’ handling of his state criminal case, including decisions involving alleged speedy-trial violations. The court also concluded that the statutory limits on injunctive relief against judges barred McMurray’s request for such relief because appellate and declaratory remedies had been available.

Claims against Vance and Kabakova. The court dismissed McMurray’s § 1983 damages claims against District Attorney Vance and Assistant District Attorney Kabakova under prosecutorial immunity and as frivolous. Prosecutorial immunity protects prosecutors from damages claims for actions closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal prosecution, including decisions about pursuing a prosecution and alleged speedy-trial violations. The court determined that the challenged conduct arose from Vance’s and Kabakova’s prosecution of McMurray.

Claims against Officer Polesovsky. The court construed McMurray’s allegations against Polesovsky as claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under § 1983. It dismissed the false-arrest claim for failure to state a claim because it was untimely. The court applied a three-year limitations period and concluded that the claim accrued on the January 27, 2014 arrest, but McMurray did not file this action until September 15, 2021. The court also stated that the conviction, which survived appeal, conclusively established probable cause for the arrest, providing an additional reason the false-arrest claim failed.

The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim without prejudice because such a claim does not accrue until the criminal case ends favorably to the plaintiff, and McMurray did not allege that his conviction had been overturned or otherwise invalidated.

Federal habeas relief. The court treated McMurray’s request to undo his state conviction as a request for relief under § 2254. Federal habeas relief under that statute requires the person to be in custody under the challenged state judgment when the petition is filed. The court found that McMurray had not alleged facts showing that he was still in custody under the conviction on September 15, 2021. Because the two-to-four-year sentence appeared to have expired before filing, the court dismissed the § 2254 claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated that this jurisdictional dismissal was not a decision on the merits and would not count as a second or successive habeas petition.

State-law claims and amendment. After dismissing all claims within its original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims. The court also denied McMurray leave to amend because it concluded that the defects in his complaint could not be cured by amendment.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It dismissed the § 1983 claims against Stolz and Ward under judicial immunity and as frivolous; dismissed the § 1983 damages claims against Vance and Kabakova under prosecutorial immunity and as frivolous; dismissed the false-arrest claim against Polesovsky for failure to state a claim; and dismissed the malicious-prosecution claim against Polesovsky without prejudice. It dismissed the § 2254 claims for lack of jurisdiction, declined to consider the state-law claims, and denied leave to amend. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.