Kelsey v. Sherman

Background

Michael N. Kelsey filed this action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of constitutional rights by state officials. He challenged the constitutionality of New York State’s Sex Offender Registration Act and his designation as a sex offender, and possibly as a violent sexual offender. He sued Christopher Sherman, a Board Examiner with the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders; Felix Catena, a New York State County Court Judge; and Kathy Hochul, the Governor of New York. He sued each defendant in both official and individual capacities and sought damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. He also asserted claims for himself and a proposed class.

Because Kelsey filed the action while incarcerated and sued government officials, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Class Claims

The court dismissed Kelsey’s class claims. Federal law allows a person to represent himself or to appear through a lawyer, but a person without a lawyer cannot represent other people in federal court. The court noted that Kelsey had said he was once an attorney, but that he had been disbarred effective May 12, 2016. The court therefore concluded that he could not serve as a class representative.

Claims Against Judge Catena

The court dismissed all of Kelsey’s claims against Judge Catena.

First, the court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Kelsey’s official-capacity claims against Catena. The court explained that this constitutional protection generally prevents federal suits against states and state officials for damages or other relief addressing past conduct. Kelsey’s claims against Catena concerned Catena’s 2016 decision to certify Kelsey as a sex offender, which the court characterized as retrospective relief.

Second, the court dismissed Kelsey’s individual-capacity damages claims against Catena under judicial immunity. Judges are generally protected from damages claims for actions taken as part of their judicial responsibilities. The court found that Catena’s decision arose from an individual case before him and that Kelsey had not alleged that Catena acted without jurisdiction.

Third, the court dismissed Kelsey’s individual-capacity claims for injunctive relief. Section 1983 generally does not allow an injunction against a judge for actions taken in a judicial role unless a declaratory judgment was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. The court found that declaratory relief had been available because Kelsey could appeal, and did appeal, Catena’s decisions in the criminal case.

Finally, the court dismissed Kelsey’s individual-capacity claims for declaratory relief for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prevents a federal district court from reviewing and rejecting a final state-court judgment. The court found that Kelsey had lost in state court, complained of injuries caused by Catena’s decision, asked the federal court to reject that decision, and began this federal case after the state proceedings and appeals ended.

Claims Against Sherman and Hochul

The court dismissed Kelsey’s official-capacity claims against Sherman and Hochul for damages and other retrospective relief under the Eleventh Amendment. The court stated that New York had not waived that protection and that Congress had not removed it for these claims.

The court allowed Kelsey’s official-capacity claims for injunctive and prospective declaratory relief against Sherman and Hochul to proceed. The court understood these claims to allege that the officials’ continuing implementation of the Sex Offender Registration Act violated Kelsey’s federal constitutional rights and to seek a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an order preventing its future enforcement.

The court also allowed Kelsey’s individual-capacity claims against Sherman and Hochul for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief to proceed. The order did not decide whether those claims would ultimately succeed.

Disposition and Next Steps

The court dismissed the class claims, dismissed all claims against Catena, and dismissed Kelsey’s official-capacity claims for damages and other retrospective relief against Sherman and Hochul. The remaining claims against Sherman and Hochul were allowed to proceed.

The clerk was directed to issue summonses for Sherman and Hochul. Kelsey was required to serve those defendants within 90 days after the summonses were issued or request an extension within that period. The court stated that it could dismiss the remaining claims for failure to prosecute if neither occurred. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was instructed to terminate Catena from the docket.