Kotlyarsky v. United States Department of Justice

Background

Boris Kotlyarsky brought this action against the United States Department of Justice, Preet Bharara in his official capacity, and James Comey in his official capacity. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated Kotlyarsky’s constitutional rights in connection with his 2017 convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion and aiding and abetting Hobbs Act extortion.

The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims concerning suppression of exculpatory evidence and unlawful detention. It also asserted state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Kotlyarsky sought $250 million in damages.

Kotlyarsky had pleaded guilty in 2016 and was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment in 2017. He did not appeal. In 2018, he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate or reduce his sentence. That motion raised several issues, including interstate-commerce effects, ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged violations of the government’s duty to disclose favorable evidence, and the validity of his plea agreement. Judge Kaplan denied the motion in 2019.

Motion to Dismiss and Report and Recommendation

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The defendants argued, among other things, that the claims were barred by collateral estoppel, the rule recognized in Heck v. Humphrey, and sovereign immunity.

The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. Judge Aaron recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice for multiple reasons:

- The § 1983 claims could not proceed against a federal agency or federal officers sued in their official capacities because § 1983 provides a remedy for violations committed under color of state law, not for claims against federal defendants in these circumstances. The court also noted sovereign-immunity protection for the federal agency and officials sued officially. - The state-law claims fell within the Federal Tort Claims Act. Judge Aaron concluded that Kotlyarsky had not alleged exhaustion of the required administrative remedies, leaving the court without subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The recommendation also stated that otherwise proper Federal Tort Claims Act claims could be brought only against the United States, not the defendants named in this case. - To the extent the complaint repeated issues resolved in Kotlyarsky’s criminal conviction and unsuccessful § 2255 proceeding, collateral estoppel barred relitigation of matters determined by those proceedings. - The § 1983 claims were also barred under Heck v. Humphrey because such claims arising from a criminal conviction cannot proceed unless the conviction or sentence has been reversed, invalidated, or otherwise called into question in one of the ways identified by that decision. - The malicious-prosecution claim failed because Kotlyarsky’s guilty plea meant that the underlying criminal proceeding did not end in his favor, an essential element of that claim. - The emotional-distress claim did not allege extreme or outrageous conduct by Bharara or Comey, and the recommendation stated that an intentional-infliction claim could not be brought against a government entity such as the Department of Justice.

Review of the Recommendation

Kotlyarsky’s objections did not dispute the recommendation’s legal conclusions. Instead, he requested permission to amend so that he could present evidence supporting his view that the government had not met its burden in the criminal case and that he had acted to save Oleg Mitnik’s life.

Because the objections did not challenge the legal analysis, Judge Gardephe reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the disputed legal issues. Judge Gardephe found no error and agreed that the § 1983 claims could not be brought against the federal agency or federal officials in their official capacities, that the state-law claims had not satisfied the Federal Tort Claims Act’s administrative-exhaustion requirement, and that the claims were also barred by collateral estoppel based on the convictions and the adverse § 2255 ruling.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Judge Gardephe denied leave to amend. The court explained that Kotlyarsky did not show how an amended complaint would overcome the legal barriers identified by Judge Aaron and the court. It therefore concluded that amendment would be futile.

The court adopted Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation in its entirety, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case.