Pizarro v. United States of America

Background

Robert Pizarro, who was incarcerated at USP Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleged that Drug Enforcement Administration agents violated his rights when they arrested him and searched his vehicle, that federal prosecutors and a paralegal acted improperly during his criminal prosecution, that a cooperating witness gave false testimony, that his criminal defense lawyers violated his constitutional rights, and that New York City and New York City Police Department personnel were involved in misconduct during the investigation.

Pizarro brought claims under Bivens, a Supreme Court decision recognizing a damages remedy in certain constitutional claims against federal officials, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing damages claims for certain violations by state actors. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, although the opinion noted that incarcerated plaintiffs remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Earlier Related Proceeding

The court said Pizarro’s new complaint was an exact duplicate of the complaint he had filed in an earlier related proceeding, No. 19-CV-6991. In that proceeding, Judge McMahon dismissed claims against the United States, the federal prosecutors, and the witnesses based on sovereign, prosecutorial, and witness immunity. She dismissed the claims against the prosecutors as frivolous, dismissed the § 1983 claims against Pizarro’s criminal defense lawyers because they were not state actors, and dismissed claims against the DEA agents and New York City police officers under Heck v. Humphrey because success on those claims could undermine Pizarro’s criminal conviction. Judge McMahon allowed Pizarro to replead certain Fourth Amendment claims against the DEA agents, but he did not file an amended pleading in that proceeding.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek damages from an immune defendant.

The court concluded that the new complaint had the same deficiencies as the earlier complaint. It therefore dismissed claims based on sovereign immunity, prosecutorial immunity, and witness immunity. It also dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court treated the claims dismissed on prosecutorial-immunity grounds as frivolous under the filing-fee statute.

The court further explained that Pizarro’s claims against his defense lawyers could not proceed under § 1983 because those lawyers were private parties and their court appointment did not make them state actors. The court also concluded that Pizarro’s claims concerning his arrest, vehicle search, and the New York City police investigation were barred by Heck or otherwise failed to state a claim. Under that rule, a civil claim cannot proceed when success would necessarily imply that an existing criminal conviction or sentence is invalid, unless the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated. The court also noted that Pizarro did not allege facts showing a Fourth Amendment violation or an injury separate from his prosecution and incarceration.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under sovereign, prosecutorial, and witness immunity; dismissed the action as frivolous to the extent the dismissal was based on prosecutorial immunity; and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Pizarro 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the earlier related proceeding. The order did not state that the dismissal itself was with or without prejudice. If Pizarro did not timely amend, judgment dismissing the complaint would be entered without further notice. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.