Mercado v. Kitsos

Background

Matthew L. Mercado, who was incarcerated at the Orange County Correctional Facility and represented himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Detective J. Kitsos #JK084, the Orange County Sheriff Dept., and the Orange County Law Dept. Mercado alleged that on April 29, 2021, Detective Kitsos promised to pursue charges against Mercado’s estranged wife for adultery, incest, and child endangerment but did not follow through. Mercado also alleged that Kitsos and the Sheriff’s Department ignored his complaints, allowing his children to be subjected to wrongful neglect. The complaint contained no allegations against the Orange County Law Department. Mercado sought any relief the court considered proper.

Screening standard

Because Mercado was a prisoner seeking relief from governmental defendants and had permission to proceed without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it would read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to include enough facts to make a legally plausible claim.

Section 1983 claims

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court concluded that Mercado had not stated such a claim against Detective Kitsos. The court held that there is no constitutional right to a police or governmental investigation, and it found that the exceptions to that general rule did not apply to the facts alleged. The court also held that Mercado could not use this civil case to initiate or compel the criminal prosecution of another person because the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

Claims against county departments

The court dismissed the claims against the Orange County Sheriff Dept. and the Orange County Law Dept. because, under New York law, municipal agencies and departments do not have a separate legal identity that allows them to be sued. The court noted that Mercado might have intended to sue Orange County, but a county cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. Mercado would have had to allege facts showing that a county policy, custom, or practice caused a constitutional violation. The court found no such allegations. It also noted that Mercado did not explain why he named the Orange County Law Department.

Disposition and amendment

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court granted Mercado leave to file an amended complaint complying with the court’s instructions within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 22-CV-1529 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Mercado did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.