Mendez v. Johnson

Background

Hiram Noel Mendez filed a self-represented complaint and was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. The court treated his allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law.

Mendez alleged that his claims arose on January 12, 2020, in Peekskill, New York. His complaint referred to alleged fiduciary relationships involving his estate, a Peekskill City Court, property being auctioned without his knowledge or authorization, and concerns about tax fraud. He also alleged that handcuffs injured his hand badly enough that he went to a hospital. He sought $240,000 for alleged property loss, lost work time, mailing and filing costs, travel expenses, and loss of use of his automobile.

Screening Standard

Because Mendez was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although self-represented complaints are read liberally, they must still provide a short and plain statement of facts showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Claims Against Johnson, Guerrero, and Bowen

The court dismissed the claims against Judge Reginald J. Johnson, Clerk of Court Spenser Guerrero, and Chief Clerk Belle Bowen. Judges have absolute immunity from damages claims for actions within their judicial responsibilities. That protection also extends to clerks and other court employees when their acts assist a judge in carrying out judicial duties.

The court said the factual basis was not entirely clear, but the allegations appeared to concern actions taken in connection with a case before Judge Johnson in Peekskill City Court. Mendez did not allege facts showing that these defendants acted outside their judicial responsibilities or jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that they were immune from the requested monetary relief and dismissed the claims on that basis; it also characterized those claims as frivolous under the fee-screening statute.

Claims Against Ronco, Cardinale, Dycktra, and Santos

The court did not dismiss the claims against Assistant District Attorney Stephen A. Ronco, Tina Cardinale, Officer Dycktra, or Officer Santos at this stage. Instead, it granted Mendez leave to amend those claims.

As to Ronco, the complaint did not explain how he allegedly violated Mendez’s rights. The court noted that prosecutors generally have absolute immunity for acts within their official duties that are closely connected to the judicial phase of a criminal case. If Mendez reasserted claims against Ronco, he had to allege facts suggesting that Ronco acted outside the scope of those duties and violated his rights.

As to Officers Dycktra and Santos, Mendez alleged that handcuffs caused his injury but did not explain how either officer was personally involved. As to Cardinale, the complaint named her but included no facts identifying who she was or how she was involved in violating Mendez’s rights. The court granted leave to amend so Mendez could provide facts supporting plausible claims against these defendants.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court gave Mendez 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and repeat any facts or claims he wanted the court to consider. It had to identify what each defendant did or failed to do, when and where the events occurred, the injuries involved, and the relief sought. If Mendez failed to amend on time without showing good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mendez permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on August 22, 2022.