Herbert v. SanFeliz

Background

Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, who was incarcerated at Sullivan County Jail and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for constitutional violations. The court had previously granted Herbert permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen Herbert’s complaint. At this stage, the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Claims Dismissed on Immunity Grounds

The court dismissed Herbert’s claims against Justice James R. Farrell. Herbert alleged that Justice Farrell signed an arrest warrant for Kevin Patton on April 1, 2022, and that Herbert was also arrested even though he was not named in the warrant. The court held that judicial immunity protected Justice Farrell from damages claims based on acts arising from or related to cases before him. It also treated those claims as frivolous under the fee-waiver statute.

The court separately dismissed Herbert’s claims against prosecutors Meagan K. Galligan and Michael Puma. Those claims were based on allegedly charging Herbert with crimes he said he did not commit. The court held that prosecutorial immunity protected conduct within the prosecutors’ official duties and connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. The court also treated these claims as frivolous.

The opinion’s discussion contains a name inconsistency: after discussing Justice Farrell, it says the court dismisses claims against “Justice Patton.” The conclusion identifies the dismissed judicial defendant as Justice Farrell.

Service and Discovery

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare U.S. Marshals Service forms for Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox. Because Herbert was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the Marshals Service would handle service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summonses were issued.

The court also ruled that Local Civil Rule 33.2 applied. Under that rule, the defendants had to respond to standard prisoner interrogatories and document requests within 120 days after service of the complaint and quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed Herbert’s claims against Justice Farrell, Galligan, and Puma under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). It ordered service on SanFeliz, Depuy, and Fox, and directed that a copy of the order and an information package be mailed to Herbert. Judge Kenneth M. Karas certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.