Encarnacion v. Irby

Background

Samuel Encarnacion, who was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants interfered with submissions he made in connection with challenges to his state-court criminal conviction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Because Encarnacion was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or otherwise fall within the statute’s listed grounds. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Against Immune Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against Justice Martin Marcus. It held that judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions taken within their judicial responsibilities. Encarnacion did not allege facts showing that Marcus acted outside his judicial role or jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Marcus under the judicial-immunity provision of the screening statute and consequently treated them as frivolous for purposes of that statute.

The court also dismissed the claims against Bronx County Assistant District Attorneys Shera Knight and Jennifer N. Russell. Their alleged conduct involved acting as advocates for the state while defending Encarnacion’s conviction against a postconviction challenge. The court held that prosecutors have absolute immunity for such advocacy-related conduct and dismissed those claims under the screening statute.

The court dismissed the claims against Sandra Irby and John W. McConnell, attorneys for the New York State Office of Court Administration. The complaint alleged that they represented a state employee in civil court proceedings. The court held that government attorneys have absolute immunity under § 1983 for advocacy closely associated with litigation and dismissed the claims against them on that basis.

Claims Against Foggie and the Doe Clerk

Encarnacion alleged that Michelle Foggie, a clerk of the Bronx Supreme Court Criminal Division, and an unidentified motions clerk failed to docket his motion challenging his conviction. Court clerks may receive judicial immunity for discretionary acts closely connected to the judicial process, including filing documents and managing a court’s calendar.

The court stated that it was not clear whether Foggie and the Doe clerk acted at the direction of a judge or under an established court practice. It therefore declined at that stage to dismiss the claims against them on immunity grounds. The opinion also stated that the court would address at a later stage whether the claims were timely under § 1983.

Service and Identification Orders

Because Encarnacion had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court ordered the clerk to issue a summons for Foggie, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service form, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve her. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons was issued.

The court ordered the New York City Law Department to identify the Doe motions clerk and provide that person’s address to Encarnacion and the court within 60 days. Encarnacion was ordered to file an amended complaint naming the Doe defendant within 30 days after receiving that information. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the claims against Sandra Irby, John W. McConnell, Shera Knight, Jennifer N. Russell, and Justice Martin Marcus. It ordered service on Michelle Foggie and required assistance in identifying the Doe clerk. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Ramos signed the order.