Hopkins v. Ramson

Background

Robert Hopkins filed this action without a lawyer while detained on Rikers Island. He sued the New York City Comptroller, his own attorney, Gamiel A. Ramson, and an unidentified judge. The court understood the complaint to assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state-law civil claims, and possible requests for criminal prosecution.

In 2019, Ramson filed a notice of claim with the New York City Comptroller concerning injuries Hopkins allegedly suffered in 2018 while held at the Anna M. Kross Center. Hopkins later settled that matter with the City of New York for $37,500 and signed a general release on or about February 20, 2020. Hopkins alleged that the settlement was fraudulent and that the agreement was an unfair contract. He sought $3 million in damages and injunctive relief concerning mental-health care, social services, monitoring of the Department of Correction, and court procedures.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires screening of a prisoner’s complaint against a governmental entity or officer. The court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must contain enough factual detail to state a plausible claim.

Requests for criminal prosecution

The court dismissed any claims seeking criminal prosecution of the defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A private plaintiff cannot direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges because the decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, and Hopkins therefore lacked standing to seek that relief.

Claims against Ramson

The court dismissed Hopkins’s § 1983 claims against Ramson for failure to state a claim. Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to allege both a violation of a federal right and action under state authority. The court held that Hopkins alleged no facts showing that Ramson, a private attorney who represented Hopkins in filing the notice of claim, acted as a state actor. The court also dismissed any § 1983 conspiracy claims against Ramson because the conspiracy allegations were vague and unsupported.

Claims against the Comptroller and the unidentified judge

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the Comptroller and “John Doe (Judge)” for failure to state a claim. Hopkins alleged no facts showing that either defendant was personally and directly involved in the injuries he described. The court understood the unidentified judge to be a state-court judge and noted that claims based on a judge’s rulings would also be barred by judicial immunity, although the opinion stated that no related civil action appeared to have been commenced.

Claims against the City of New York

To the extent Hopkins asserted § 1983 claims against the City based on events not mentioned in the general release, the court dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court found that Hopkins did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his constitutional rights. The court also dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on behalf of other Rikers Island prisoners because a self-represented, nonlawyer litigant may not represent other people.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early stage of the case. This included any state-law claim asking the court to decide whether the general release was an unfair contract. The court therefore did not decide the merits of those state-law claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Hopkins leave to amend because it found that the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the action, directed that judgment issue, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, Hopkins’s permission to proceed without prepaying fees was denied for purposes of an appeal.