Potter v. People of the State of New York

Background

Donald J. Potter filed this pro se action, meaning he represented himself, against the People of the State of New York, Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler, Assistant District Attorneys Janine Kovacs and Robert DeMono, and Orange County Supreme Court Justice Robert Freehill. He sought money damages for alleged violations during his criminal proceedings in Orange County Supreme Court.

Potter alleged that, after his October 2018 arrest on several charges, the Town of Wallkill Police Department charged him with third-degree burglary and third-degree larceny. He claimed that the Wallkill charges were not filed with the local criminal court, that he was not arraigned on them, that his indictment on other charges was invalid, that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the Wallkill charges, and that he was falsely imprisoned.

Potter initially sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, but the court denied that request under the federal law’s “three-strikes” rule. He then paid the filing fee. The opinion states that he was later convicted on four charges and that his direct appeal was pending in the New York appellate court.

Court’s Analysis

The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires courts to review prisoner complaints against governmental entities or officials and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from immune defendants.

Claims against New York. The court held that Potter’s claims against the State of New York were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which generally prevents suits against states in federal court unless the state has waived that protection or Congress has removed it. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity and that Congress had not removed it for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed those claims.

Claim against Justice Freehill. The court held that judges are absolutely immune from damages claims for acts performed as part of their judicial responsibilities. It found that Potter had not alleged facts showing that Justice Freehill acted outside his judicial role or without jurisdiction. The court dismissed the claims against Justice Freehill as barred by judicial immunity and as frivolous.

Claims against the prosecutors. The court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from damages claims for actions within their official duties that are connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. It found that Potter’s claims against District Attorney Hoovler and the assistant district attorneys concerned actions within that protected scope. The court dismissed those claims as seeking money from immune defendants and as frivolous.

Claims challenging the conviction. The court determined that Potter’s claims essentially challenged his criminal proceedings and conviction. It stated that the proper vehicle for challenging the validity of a state conviction is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state remedies have been fully exhausted. Because Potter’s direct appeal was still pending, the court declined to treat his complaint as such a petition. The court stated that he may file that type of petition after exhausting available state remedies.

Leave to amend. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court denied leave to amend because it found the claims frivolous and concluded that Potter sought money from defendants immune from that relief. The court determined that amendment would be futile.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous and because it sought monetary relief from defendants who were immune from such relief. The court did not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation in its conclusion. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.