Vazquez-Diaz v. Borreiro

Background

Luis A. Vazquez-Diaz, who was civilly committed because of incompetency and held at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, filed this action without a lawyer. He sued NYPD Officers Borreiro, Lance, and Luchese; Sergeant Pendergast; former Bronx County Supreme Court Justice John Perone; a former Bronx County District Attorney, Robert Johnson; a “Jane Doe White Female Prosecutor”; “Jurors”; and “Jury.” He sought damages and what the court understood as release from civil commitment.

The court construed the complaint as asserting damages and injunctive-relief claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3), along with a request for release under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The claims concerned alleged arrests on October 26, 1995, and November 7, 1995; the resulting prosecution and conviction; and Vazquez-Diaz’s current civil commitment.

Earlier proceedings

The court described several earlier related proceedings. In one, claims concerning the criminal prosecution, conviction, arrests, jurors, and other defendants were dismissed in 2007. The court previously ruled that jurors were protected from damages claims for their jury service and that claims under several statutes, including § 1985(3), failed to state a claim.

In two other earlier proceedings, claims concerning the 1995 arrests were dismissed as untimely. In another proceeding, the court dismissed Vazquez-Diaz’s request for release from civil commitment because this court lacked jurisdiction to consider that request. The appeal from that dismissal was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that because Vazquez-Diaz had been civilly committed based on incompetency, procedural protections ordinarily required appointment of a guardian ad litem and counsel before the court could decide the merits of his claims. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to protect an unrepresented party who cannot adequately protect his or her own interests. But the court also explained that it could dismiss a complaint without appointing a guardian or counsel when no substantial claim could be asserted.

The court found that the complaint had no arguable basis in law or fact and was therefore frivolous under the statute governing fee-free lawsuits. It stated that the claims concerning the 1995 arrests, prosecution, and conviction had already been rejected or could have been raised in the earlier related proceedings. It also stated that the claims concerning release from civil commitment were barred because this court lacked jurisdiction to decide them.

The court separately held that judicial immunity barred claims against former Justice Perone for acts or rulings taken while presiding over the criminal case. It also held that prosecutorial immunity barred damages claims against former District Attorney Johnson and the “Jane Doe White Female Prosecutor” for deciding whether to prosecute and for prosecuting Vazquez-Diaz. The court concluded that these claims were frivolous as well.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), but without prejudice because Vazquez-Diaz had been adjudicated incompetent. The court expressly stated that the dismissal was not on the merits. It declined to appoint a guardian ad litem or counsel because the complaint asserted no substantial claim.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the complaint did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Finally, it directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.