Dominguez v. Walsh

Background

Emily Dominguez, Janice Dominguez, and Luz Marina Gutierrez filed this self-represented action against Thomas E. Walsh II, Edwin Day, the County Attorney of Rockland County, Dominic A. Crispino, Graham Chapman, Deidre Smith-Withers, and a John Doe investigator. The complaint alleged violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as negligence and violations of New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The plaintiffs sought $3 million in damages.

The complaint focused on allegations that Rockland County District Attorney’s Office personnel told the state-court judge handling Emily Dominguez’s criminal case about her federal and state court filings and a complaint to another district attorney’s office. Dominguez alleged that the defendants accused her of trying to intimidate them and asked the state judge to intervene in those matters. She also alleged that the defendants used their positions to push up the criminal court date. The complaint did not make clear what action, if any, the state judge took.

Court’s analysis

The court first addressed Janice Dominguez and Luz Marina Gutierrez. Federal courts may hear only actual cases or controversies, and a plaintiff must show an injury connected to the defendants’ conduct that a court decision could remedy. The court found it unclear whether either woman had standing because the complaint was written solely from Emily Dominguez’s perspective. The court therefore dismissed Janice Dominguez and Luz Marina Gutierrez as plaintiffs, while allowing them to be included in an amended complaint if they allege facts establishing standing. The court also noted that they had not signed the original complaint.

As to Emily Dominguez, the court construed the allegations as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for violations of federal rights by people acting under state law. The court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the requirement for a plausible claim because it did not allege what injury resulted from the defendants’ statements or what adverse consequences followed. It also did not identify which defendant made the statements. The complaint did not allege how the Rockland County Executive or County Attorney were personally involved; holding a leadership position alone was insufficient.

The court further stated that the claims against the district-attorney defendants appeared to involve actions within their official duties and connected to conducting a criminal trial, for which they likely had immunity from damages claims. The court directed that any amended complaint address that issue. Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court did not decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It said it would consider that question if an amended complaint stated a federal claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and granted Emily Dominguez 30 days to file an amended complaint. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. If no amended complaint was filed within the deadline and no good cause was shown, the court said it would enter a civil judgment and direct the clerk to terminate the matter. No defendant was required to answer unless later directed by the court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.