Herbert v. SanFeliz

Background

Jeremiah Folsom Herbert, who was incarcerated at Sullivan County Jail, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The court had granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court explained that prisoners still remain responsible for the full filing fee under the applicable statute.

Screening and Immunity Rulings

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the court to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief from governmental entities or their officers or employees. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court dismissed Herbert’s claims against Superior Court Justice James R. Farrell. Herbert alleged that Farrell signed an arrest warrant for Kevin Patton and that Herbert was also arrested even though he was not named in the warrant. The court held that these allegations concerned acts arising from or related to a case before Farrell, so judicial immunity barred claims for damages.

The court also dismissed Herbert’s claims against Galligan and Puma. Those claims were based on the defendants’ actions as prosecutors in charging Herbert with crimes that he said he did not commit. The court held that the alleged conduct was within their official duties and connected with the criminal trial process, so prosecutorial immunity barred the claims for damages. The court also described claims dismissed on immunity grounds as frivolous for purposes of the filing-fee statute.

Service and Discovery

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to issue summonses and prepare the required U.S. Marshals Service forms for Christina SanFeliz, Devinnie M. Depuy, and Christopher Fox. Because Herbert was allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the Marshals Service would handle service. The court extended the service deadline to 90 days after the summons is issued and stated that Herbert must notify the court in writing if his address changes.

Local Civil Rule 33.2 applies to the action. Within 120 days after service of the complaint, the defendants must respond to the standard interrogatories and document requests identified by that rule and must quote each request verbatim in their responses.

Disposition

The court dismissed Herbert’s claims against Farrell, Galligan, and Puma. It ordered the issuance of summonses and service materials for SanFeliz, Depuy, and Fox, and directed that a copy of the order and an information package be mailed to Herbert. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.