Dickson v. Barnes

Background

Simone Dickson, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees, sued “Department of Homeland Security Officer Barnes.” The court understood Barnes to be a police officer employed by the Federal Protective Service, part of the Department of Homeland Security. Dickson alleged that an altercation occurred on August 25, 2021, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York. The court construed her complaint as asserting claims for excessive force and false arrest under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a Supreme Court decision recognizing certain damages claims for constitutional violations by federal officers.

Dickson sought damages and other relief, including Barnes’s criminal prosecution, Barnes’s retirement and other financial benefits, an order prohibiting harassment, placement in the federal witness-protection program, and counseling money for her children. The case had originally been filed in the Northern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court had previously granted Dickson permission to proceed without prepaying fees.

Screening standard

Because Dickson was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally supportable claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the complaint.

Criminal-prosecution requests

The court dismissed, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Dickson’s claims seeking Barnes’s criminal prosecution. It explained that the decision to bring a criminal case belongs to prosecutors, and a private citizen cannot direct prosecutors or the court to begin such a prosecution. The court connected this limitation to Dickson’s lack of standing, meaning she had no legal basis to ask the federal court to order a prosecution of another person.

Other relief

The court also dismissed all of Dickson’s other claims for relief apart from her Bivens damages claims. It explained that a request under 18 U.S.C. § 1514 for an order prohibiting harassment could be made only by a government attorney. It further held that the Government was protected by sovereign immunity from Dickson’s request that the court order her placement in the federal witness-protection program.

Service and disposition

The court did not dismiss Dickson’s Bivens claims seeking damages. Instead, it directed the Clerk to issue a summons for Barnes, prepare the required service form with Barnes’s service address at 26 Federal Plaza in New York, and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service. The order stated that Dickson was responsible for ensuring service within 90 days after the summons was issued and for notifying the court of any address change.

The court’s conclusion was that it dismissed all of Dickson’s claims for relief, with the exception of her Bivens claims for damages. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.