Celli v. New York Department of Education

Background

Lucio Celli brought the action without a lawyer against the New York City Department of Education, Sabrina Cook, Mayor Bill De Blasio, Council Speaker Corey Johnson, Senator Charles Schumer, Shannon Hamilton-Kopplin, and the New York City Law Department/Corporation Counsel. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted that the defendants violated rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also invoked diversity jurisdiction and asserted state-law claims concerning payments allegedly denied during his detention and his teacher-tenure hearing under New York Education Law § 3020-a.

The complaint also challenged Celli’s federal criminal conviction for transmitting threats to injure another under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). Celli argued that his criminal proceedings were flawed because he did not receive his preferred lawyer, his appointed lawyer was ineffective, he was pressured into pleading guilty, and bail was improperly denied. His direct appeal was pending when this order was issued.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was not the proper vehicle for challenging a federal criminal conviction. Such challenges could be raised on direct appeal or through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge the conviction or sentence. The court found a § 2255 motion premature while the direct appeal was pending and explained that such a motion had to be filed in the Eastern District of New York, the court that imposed the sentence. The court therefore declined to recharacterize this case as a § 2255 motion.

The court also ruled that diversity jurisdiction was unavailable for the state-law claims because the complaint showed that the plaintiff and nearly all defendants appeared to be citizens of New York. The court declined to allow an amendment to remove nondiverse defendants, finding that doing so appeared futile because the only potentially diverse defendant had no apparent connection to the action.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims when federal claims are also present—over the remaining state-law claims. The court stated that those claims could be pursued without prejudice in an appropriate forum.

Disposition

The court dismissed Celli’s constitutional challenges to his Eastern District of New York conviction without prejudice to pursuing them on direct appeal or through a collateral challenge to the conviction. It declined, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Celli and note service on the docket.