Rich v. State of New York

Background

Benjamin Samuel Rich, formerly known as Samuel Guillaume, represented himself in an action arising from his 2016 arrest and prosecution in New York County. He sued the State of New York; former New York County District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr.; Assistant District Attorneys Shilpa Kalra and David Nasar; the City of New York; the New York City Police Department; police officers Michael Miller, Vincent Corrando, and John Passementi; and other defendants.

Rich asserted claims under federal civil-rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state constitutional and common-law claims. He alleged that Miller failed to conduct a complete investigation, relied on or embellished contradictory statements, disregarded surveillance video, and obtained warrants using false or misleading information. He also alleged that prosecutors withheld surveillance footage and coached a witness, Jackson, to give false testimony to a grand jury. The state criminal case ended when the indictment was dismissed after a mistrial and after Kalra consented to dismissal based on false testimony, while opposing Rich’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

The defendants filed three motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint plausibly states a legal claim.

Claims Dismissed Before the Defendant-Specific Rulings

The court dismissed Count 7 with prejudice because 18 U.S.C. § 245 is a federal criminal statute that does not give private individuals a right to sue. It dismissed Count 9 with prejudice because the alleged § 1983 claim for fraudulent misrepresentation duplicated Count 4, the alleged denial of a fair trial based on fabricated evidence. The state constitutional claims included in Counts 4, 5, and 6 were also dismissed with prejudice because § 1983 provided an available remedy for the alleged federal constitutional violations.

State of New York

The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. It held that the State was protected from Rich’s federal claims by state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found no waiver of that immunity, no applicable congressional abrogation, and no exception for prospective relief because Rich sought damages and relief for past violations. The court stated that amendment would be futile and dismissed Rich’s claims against the State with prejudice to renewal.

District Attorney Defendants

The court held that prosecutors had absolute immunity for decisions about whether to prosecute Rich and about disclosing evidence while acting as advocates. Those rulings defeated claims based on the decision to prosecute and the alleged withholding of exculpatory surveillance video. The court also held that Vance could not be liable merely because he supervised Kalra and Nasar, and it dismissed all claims against Vance with prejudice.

The court treated Rich’s allegation that prosecutors coached Jackson to give false grand-jury testimony differently. Because the complaint did not establish whether that conduct was investigative or advocacy-related, the court declined to grant absolute immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court also concluded that qualified immunity did not apply to knowingly coaching a witness to give false testimony. The court therefore allowed Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 to remain potentially viable against Kalra and Nasar on that factual theory, subject to other defects.

The court then ruled that most claims against Kalra and Nasar were untimely. It concluded that Counts 3 and 4—the § 1983 malicious-prosecution and fair-trial claims—were filed on time because they accrued when the indictment was dismissed and were affected by New York’s COVID-19 filing-period tolling. Count 8, the § 1983 abuse-of-process claim, was dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Counts 5 and 6, alleging conspiracy under §§ 1985 and 1986, were also dismissed with prejudice as untimely. The state common-law claims in Counts 10 and 14 were dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with New York’s notice-of-claim and filing deadlines.

The court also found that Rich had not adequately alleged Kalra’s or Nasar’s direct personal involvement, but it gave him an opportunity to amend. The DA Defendants were ordered to disclose whether either prosecutor prepared or examined Jackson before the grand jury. Rich was required to plead specific facts about their personal involvement and, for any amended malicious-prosecution claim, facts showing that the criminal case ended in his favor. The court’s order stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims against Kalra and Nasar. Counts 3 and 4 against those defendants were therefore dismissed without prejudice to renewal in an amended complaint.

City Defendants

The court dismissed Count 1, alleging unlawful search and seizure, and Count 2, alleging false arrest, with prejudice as untimely. It also dismissed Counts 5 and 6, alleging §§ 1985 and 1986 conspiracy or failure to intervene, with prejudice as untimely. The state common-law negligence claims in Counts 10 through 14 were dismissed with prejudice because Rich did not timely file a notice of claim or begin the action within the required period.

The court dismissed claims against the New York City Police Department with prejudice because the department is not a suable entity separate from the City. It dismissed Rich’s municipal-liability claim against the City with prejudice because he alleged no sufficient facts showing a City policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations. It also dismissed all claims against Passementi with prejudice because Rich did not allege that he was personally involved in fabricating, concealing, or approving the allegedly false evidence.

Malicious Prosecution and Fair Trial

The court dismissed Count 3, the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim, without prejudice. It held that Rich had not shown that the criminal case ended in his favor. The indictment’s dismissal did not establish his innocence because the prosecutor continued to maintain that he was the shooter, and the state judge said he did not see prosecutorial misconduct. The court allowed Rich to amend if he could plead additional facts supporting favorable termination.

The court denied the City Defendants’ motion as to Count 4. Rich plausibly alleged that Miller fabricated or embellished Jackson’s statements, forwarded the reports to prosecutors, and that Corrando reviewed and approved the reports. The court held that probable cause was not a complete defense at this stage and that it could not accept the defendants’ factual assertion about independent ballistics evidence on a motion to dismiss. Count 4 therefore remained pending against Miller and Corrando.

Disposition

The State’s motion was granted, and Rich’s claims against the State were dismissed. The DA Defendants’ motion was granted: claims against Vance were dismissed, while Counts 3 and 4 against Kalra and Nasar were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in an amended complaint and the other claims were dismissed. The City Defendants’ motion was denied as to Count 4 and granted in all other respects; claims against the City, the police department, and Passementi were dismissed, while Count 3 against Miller and Corrando was dismissed without prejudice to renewal. Rich was ordered to file an amended complaint concerning Counts 3 and 4 by May 16, 2022.