Celli v. Katzman
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-02354
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Celli v. Katzman, Judge Seibel dismissed the constitutional claims without prejudice, declined state-law jurisdiction, denied appeal fee-waiver status, and warned of filing restrictions.
Lucio Celli’s constitutional and possible state-law claims were dismissed or left without a federal forum; the order also warned him of possible future filing restrictions and denied permission to appeal without paying the fee.
What happened
In Celli v. Katzman, Lucio Celli, representing himself, sued numerous defendants over his federal criminal proceedings, related reporting and employment matters, and other allegations. His criminal conviction appeal was still pending in the federal appeals court.
The court held that a civil-rights lawsuit was not the proper way to challenge Celli’s conviction. Such challenges had to proceed through his appeal or a separate motion in the court that imposed his sentence. The court also found no basis for diversity jurisdiction over possible state-law claims and declined to hear those claims after dismissing the federal claims.
Judge Cathy Seibel dismissed the constitutional challenges without prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied Celli’s request to proceed without paying fees on appeal, and declined to allow amendment. She warned that another civil-rights action challenging the conviction could lead to a filing bar requiring prior permission.
The detailed version
- Celli v. Katzman · No. 7:22-cv-02354
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Lucio Celli, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action seeking damages and an injunction against numerous defendants. The defendants included federal judges, federal prosecutors, defense attorneys, United States Marshals, a senator, labor-related individuals and entities, journalists, New York City officials, and the New York City Department of Education.
The complaint appeared to challenge Celli’s federal criminal proceedings, including his detention hearing and conviction, and also appeared to assert claims concerning reporting about him and his former employment with the Department of Education. Celli’s direct appeal from his conviction was pending in the federal appeals court. He had also filed a similar earlier action, which the court had dismissed after explaining that a civil-rights action was not the proper vehicle for challenging his conviction.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that it could dismiss a complaint even when the plaintiff had paid the filing fee if the action was frivolous, if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, or if the complaint failed to state a legally valid claim. It also recognized that complaints filed by people without lawyers must be read liberally.
The court dismissed the claims arising from Celli’s criminal proceedings because a civil-rights action could not be used to challenge a federal conviction. A conviction could instead be challenged on direct appeal or through a motion under Section 2255, the federal procedure for collaterally challenging a federal conviction or sentence. The court declined to treat this action as a Section 2255 motion because Celli’s direct appeal was pending and because such a motion would have to be filed in the federal district court that imposed his sentence.
The court found that it could not exercise diversity jurisdiction over any state-law claims because the complaint did not establish the required citizenship differences between the parties. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its discretionary authority to hear state-law claims related to federal claims, because it had dismissed the federal claims. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in an appropriate forum.
Disposition
The court dismissed Celli’s constitutional challenges to his conviction without prejudice to pursuing them on direct appeal or through a collateral challenge. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, directed the Clerk to close the case, and declined to grant leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
The court warned that if Celli filed another civil-rights action in that court challenging the same conviction, it would issue an order barring him from filing such an action without prior permission. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. Judge Cathy Seibel signed the order on March 30, 2022.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.