Bergrin v. United States of America

Background

Ronald A. Bergrin, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a 135-page amended complaint asserting 32 causes of action against 53 defendants. The defendants included the United States and federal agencies, federal employees, federal and state judges, United States Marshals Service personnel, defense attorneys, a court-appointed expert, and defendants affiliated with CoreCivic, Inc. Bergrin alleged that federal agents harassed and surveilled him, attempted to entrap him, interfered with his criminal and civil cases, caused or contributed to his detention and competency proceedings, and participated in the withholding of his heart medication and other mistreatment while he was detained. He asserted claims including malicious prosecution, harassment, battery, and false imprisonment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a constitutional damages claim against certain federal officials.

The Government Moving Defendants and the CoreCivic Defendants separately moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Judge Broderick stated that the complaint was subject to dismissal because of failure of service, lack of personal jurisdiction, the statute of limitations, and immunity. In assessing the dismissal motions, he generally treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true, but he noted that he was not making findings about whether those allegations were true.

Failure of service

The court found that Bergrin had provided no evidence that 30 of the 53 defendants had been served. Bergrin had said that he had served approximately 33 defendants and that he would not serve any additional defendants. The court found no good cause for extending the service deadline and declined to provide additional leniency because Bergrin had indicated that he would not attempt to serve the remaining defendants.

The court dismissed claims against the unserved defendants identified in the Government Moving Defendants’ motion and the CoreCivic Defendants’ motion. It also dismissed claims against additional unserved defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), including defendants who had not appeared. The opinion does not state that these dismissals were with or without prejudice.

Personal jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a particular defendant. Applying New York law, the court considered whether Bergrin had shown either general jurisdiction—substantial, continuous activity in New York—or specific jurisdiction based on conduct connected to New York.

The court held that Bergrin had not made the required initial showing of personal jurisdiction over the United States Attorney’s Office defendants in Ohio, most of the Sixth Circuit defendants, the CoreCivic defendants, the defense attorney defendants, the John Doe United States Marshals Service defendants, or J.C. Holland. Bergrin did not allege that these defendants lived in New York, engaged in substantial continuing activity there, committed the relevant acts there, or had the other New York contacts required by the state’s jurisdiction statutes.

The court separately rejected personal jurisdiction over Judge R. Guy Cole. Even accepting Bergrin’s allegation that Judge Cole made calls to a New York state judge, the court held that an out-of-state telephone call was not enough to establish jurisdiction under the New York statute. The court therefore dismissed claims for lack of personal jurisdiction against the specified defendants. It noted that it was not deciding personal jurisdiction issues on its own for defendants who had not appeared or had not moved on that ground because other grounds supported dismissal as to them.

Statute of limitations

Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in New York are subject to a three-year limitations period, which generally begins when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury. Bergrin filed this action on October 21, 2019. The court found that his last alleged encounter with the New Jersey investigation defendants occurred in November 2014, when he sent a letter warning certain officials that he planned to file a lawsuit. Because the alleged conduct by those defendants occurred more than three years before the lawsuit, and Bergrin provided no basis for extending the deadline, the court dismissed all claims against the New Jersey investigation defendants as untimely.

Immunity

The court held that sovereign immunity barred claims against the federal government entities. Sovereign immunity generally prevents a suit against the United States unless the United States has consented to be sued. The court also explained that § 1983 does not apply to federal government actions and that a constitutional damages claim of the type asserted against a federal agency cannot proceed against the agency itself. To the extent Bergrin’s claims were intended to arise under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the court held that he had not alleged that he first presented those claims to the relevant agency, as required by that statute.

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims against Judge Robert R. Reed in his official capacity to the extent Bergrin sought relief other than purely prospective relief. The Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state officials sued in their official capacities from federal-court suits without consent or congressional authorization.

The court also applied judicial immunity. Judges generally have absolute immunity from claims for money damages based on judicial acts, even when the plaintiff alleges bad faith, improper motives, or erroneous decisions. The court concluded that the challenged decisions by the federal and state judges—including decisions about detention, competency, motions, attorneys, appeals, sanctions, and related judicial proceedings—were judicial functions. It dismissed the claims against the moving judicial defendants and also dismissed claims against certain nonmoving judges on its own authority.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Bergrin had already amended his complaint, and because the court found that further amendment would not cure the service, personal-jurisdiction, limitations, and immunity problems, the court declined to grant leave to amend. Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered that the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, directed the Clerk to mail the order to Bergrin, and directed the Clerk to terminate the case. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to the dismissal.